DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 has a number of issues. First, the use of “whereby” is misleading. Whereby is used to indicate a cause-and-effect relation whereas it is used in the claim to mean “characterized by” or “wherein”, which is descriptive. It should be amended accordingly for clarity. Second, “selected from” is used when there are more than one options to choose from. Thus, the phrase “X1 is selected from CR1” should be more properly replaced by “X1 is CR1”, and a phrase such as “X2 is selected from CR2 or N” should be amended to “X2 is selected from CR2 and N”. Third, the recitation of “selected from halogen, Cl or F” is confusing because Cl and F are halogens. Since a group that can be a halogen includes cases where that group has BOTH Cl and F, whereas a group that is Cl or F can not have both Cl and F simultaneously, the recitation is ambiguous. Fourth, the phrase “at least one R² to R⁵ is selected from selected from CN, partially fluorinated or perfluorinated C₁ to C₈ alkyl, halogen, Cl, F” has “selected from” erroneously repeated and is ambiguous because it is open-ended. It should be amended to have “and” inserted before the last option. The same amendment should be applied to the description of Ar. Claims 2-15 are indefinite for the same reasons or by dependency. Additional issues include the following. The first line of claim 2 should be amended for better clarity, e.g., The compound of Claim 1 wherein formula (I) is represented by formula (IV)”. Claim 11 depends on claim 10 and recites a compound of formula (IV) which does not have a proper antecedent basis. It also recites a compound selected from formulae (IVa) to (IVd). But these four formulae are identical to one another. Further, claim 11 is missing a claim-ending period. In claim 12, the phrase “the at least one of” in the 2nd line is extraneous and should be removed. In claim 13, the phrase “at least one of the at least one organic semiconductor layers” is erroneous and confusing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 does nothing more than restating claim 1 in a different format. It does not alter the compound of claim 1 in any way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/168368 A1 to Ha et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ha et al. discloses an OLED comprising the following compound
PNG
media_image1.png
214
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is exemplified by such species as
PNG
media_image2.png
266
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound is representative of the claimed compound wherein A1 = formula (II) with R’ = CN, X1,2,4,5 = CF, and X3 = C(CN); and A2 = A3 = formula (III) with Ar = phenyl substituted with F and CN. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 2-4, 6-7 and 9. The features of claim 8 are met by the compounds disclosed on page 51 of the original document. The device of claims 10, 12 and 14-15 is disclosed in example 18. So is the device of claim 11, assuming that the device is the same as that of claim 10 except for replacing the compound of formula (I) with the compound of formula (IV).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/168368 A1 to Ha et al.
Regarding claim 5, the compound of claim 1 is disclosed by Ha et al. as explained above. In the prior art radialene compound, R21, R23 and R25 can be different from one another. While an example of such compounds is not given, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to make and use it without expecting any difficulty or criticality. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A)&(B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/168368 A1 to Ha et al. in view of US 2010/0288362 A1 to Hatwar et al.
Regarding claim 13, the device of claim 10 is disclosed by Ha et al. as explained above. The reference fails to disclose a device of claim 13. However, Hatwar et al. discloses a tandem OLED comprising two photoactive layers separated from each other by a charge-generation double layer comprising a p-type layer and an n-type layer, wherein the p-type layer comprises a radialene compound such as the following
PNG
media_image3.png
420
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see paragraph [0073]). The device can be used in full-color displays ([0103]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the radialene compound disclosed by Ha et al. to make a tandem OLED wherein the light-emitting units are separated from each other by a charge-generation double layer comprising a p-type layer comprising the radialene compound so as to produce devices that emit lights of various colors.
Other Prior Art of Record
The compound of claim 1 and the device of claim 10 are disclosed by Hatwar et al. as shown above. They are also disclosed by US 2012/0223296 A1 to Werner et al., US 2010/0102709 A1 to Zeika et al., and US 2008/0265216 A1 to Hartmann et al.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762