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 .
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are currently pending. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
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 1-6 and 8-17 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.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein at least one of R1, R2, R3, R4 , R5, R6, R7, and R8 is deuterium” in proviso 2 then the claim recites “wherein a, b, c, d, e, and g are each independently integers of 0 to 4, and h and f are independently integers of 0 to 7” in proviso 3; therefore, not requiring at least one of R1, R2, R3, R4 , R5, R6, R7, and R8 to be a deuterium. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear , if the precent invention wants at least one of R1, R2, R3, R4 , R5, R6, R7, and R8 to be a deuterium as claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 and 8-17 depends on claim 1; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. ( US 2022/0006063 A1) as evidenced by Hayato et al. (“The hydrogen/deuterium isotope effect of the host material on the lifetime of organic light-emitting diodes† Received 3rd July 2014, Accepted 15th September 2014 DOI: 10.1039/c4cc05108d www.rsc.org/chemcomm Hayato Tsuji,* Chikahiko Mitsuia and Eiichi Nakamura*”).
Regarding claims 1-6, Lee et al. teach a compound represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
175
219
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0064] on page 12) meeting the limitation of a compound represented by Formula 1 wherein a, b, c, d, e, and g are each independently integer of 0, and h and f are independently integer of 0 and formula 1-1 to 1-3, formula 14-16, 1-7 to 1-8, 1-9 and 1-10 to 1-12 as instantly claimed.
Assuming arguendo, the compound listed above of Lee et al. meets the limitation of chemical formula 1 of instant claim 1, amended claim 1 recites “wherein at least one of R1, R2, R3, R4 , R5, R6, R7, and R8 is deuterium” in proviso 2 which is not shown by the compound above described by Lee et al. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the compound above taught by Lee et al. to include at least one of R1, R2, R3, R4 , R5, R6, R7, and R8 is deuterium as substitutent as evidenced by Hayato et al. ( see abstract, and page 14870 e.g. “Replacement of labile C-H bonds in the host with C-D bonds increases the device (OLED) lifetime by a factor of five without loss of efficiency”) in view routine experimentation and in view of increasing the OLED device and efficiency.
Regarding claims 8 and 13-15, Lee et al. teach an organic electronic element [0014-0015 & 0104-comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer between the electrodes, wherein the organic layer may include a hole transport layer; an emitting layer and emitting auxiliary layer comprising the compound of Formula 1 ( see figures, claims, examples and abstract).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Lee et al. teach the emitting layer [0069-0070] comprising a compound represented by any one of Formulas 2 to 4 (see paragraphs [0083] of Lee et al. which teaches compounds of Formula 3, Formula 9-1, Formula 9-2 and Formula 9-4 as instantly claimed).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Lee et al. teach an electronic device comprising a display device comprising an organic electronic element ( OLED) and a control unit for diving the display device ([0003-0005 & 0102-0107] claims and examples).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ( US 2022/0006063 A1) as evidenced by Hayato et al. (“The hydrogen/deuterium isotope effect of the host material on the lifetime of organic light-emitting diodes† Received 3rd July 2014, Accepted 15th September 2014 DOI: 10.1039/c4cc05108d www.rsc.org/chemcomm Hayato Tsuji,* Chikahiko Mitsuia and Eiichi Nakamura*”) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Brooks et al. (KR 10-2020-0013113).
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. do not explicitly recite a compound represented by Formula 2 that is represented by any one of the following compounds 8-1 to 8-18 as instantly claimed. However, the examiner has added Brooks et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of organic electronic elements to include a compound represented by Formula 2 that is represented by any one of the following compounds 8-1 to 8-18 ( see triphenylene core of chemical formula I :
PNG
media_image2.png
361
335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1, R2 and R3 are independently hydrogen, a non-fused aryl or heteroaryl group having one or more substituents in abstract, claims 1, 20 and 21 and examples). Lee et al. and Brooks et al. are analogous art in an organic electronic element field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the compound of Lee et al. to include the triphenylene compound as taught by Brooks et al. in view of aiding in being useful in the phosphorescent organic light emitting devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights