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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language, “Provided are” should be deleted and the abstract is less than 50 words. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “i is an integer of 0 to 7” should be replaced to show an actually “j” and to be “j is an integer of 0 to 7”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites “between the 2 or more stacks”. However, there is no positive recitation of 2 or more stacks in claims 8 or 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cha et al. (KR 2020-0144482 A1).
Regarding claims 1-7, Cha et al. teach a compound represented by formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
289
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
( see abstract, claims and examples), more specifically
PNG
media_image2.png
194
251
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on page 6 or
PNG
media_image3.png
200
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on page 8 as compounds in paragraphs [0095-0107] meeting the limitation of a compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
260
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, a compound represented by any Formulas 1-1 to 1-3, a compound represented by any Formulas 1-4 to 1-6, a compound represented by any Formulas 1-7 or 1-8, a compound represented by Formula 1-9, a compound represented by any one of formulas 1-10 to 1-12, and a compound represented by any of following compounds P-1 to P-90 as instantly claimed.
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) 1-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2016-0091198 A1).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 11-17, Lee et al. disclose an organic optoelectronic device ( see abstract, claims and examples) comprising: an anode and a cathode facing each other; a light-emitting layer positioned between the anode and the cathode, ; a hole transport layer positioned between the anode and the light-emitting layer; and an auxiliary hole transport layer positioned between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer, wherein the hole transport layer comprises at least one type of a first compound represented by chemical formula 1 and the auxiliary hole transport layer comprises at least one type of a second compound represented by a combination of chemical formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
150
185
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on page 4 and chemical formula 3:
PNG
media_image6.png
237
255
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on page 4, wherein the sconed compound includes compound 2-19:
PNG
media_image7.png
121
64
media_image7.png
Greyscale
( see claims 1 and 10 and paragraphs [0154-0155]). Compound 2-19 of Lee et al. is similar to the compound represented by chemical formula 1 in claim 1; the compound represented by chemical formula 1-1 in claim 2; the compound represented by chemical formula 1-5 in claim 3; and the compound represented by chemical formula 1-7 in claim 4, wherein a-h are 0. In addition, compound 2-18 of Lee et al. is similar to the compound represented by chemical formula 1-9 in claim 5; the compound represented by chemical formula 1-11 in claim 6, wherein a-d are 0, and I and j are 0; and compound P-2 in claim 7.
Further regards to claims 1-7, Lee et al. differs from the instantly claimed invention in that two naphthyl groups are included at the terminal, whereas two phenyl groups are included at the terminal, but deriving claims 1-7 by changing, to a naphthyl group, the phenyl group which is a terminal substituent is a work amounting to a normal structure activity study, thus, the structural change does not involve any particular difficulty. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the structural chemical compound of Lee at al. to include that two naphthyl groups are included at the terminal, whereas two phenyl groups are included at the terminal in view of routine experimentation.
Further regards to claim 8, Lee et al. do not explicitly recite the compound of claim 1 is contained in an auxiliary light emitting layer as instantly claimed. However, in view of the features disclosed in Lee et al. wherein the second compound is contained in the auxiliary hole transport layer positioned between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer, and the auxiliary hole transport layer controls, by comprising the second compound such as compound 2-19, the hole injection characteristics so as to reduce the accumulation of holes at the interface between the auxiliary hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer, thereby exhibiting an excellent effect of reducing quenching, in which excitons are annihilated by polarons at the interface ( see claims 1 and 10 & [0120]), the difference would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art in view of design choice and routine experimentation.
Further regards to claims 9, 11 and 12, Lee et al. teach 9,10-di(naphthalene-2-yl)anthracene (ADN:
PNG
media_image8.png
229
305
media_image8.png
Greyscale
) as a host and BD01(
PNG
media_image9.png
134
160
media_image9.png
Greyscale
) as a dopant, in the light emitting layer, wherein AND is the same as the compound of chemical formula 3 in claim 9, wherein R25 and R30 are naphthalene, and R23, R24, R26-29, R31 and R32 are hydrogen; and compound 9-10 in claim 11, and BD01 is the same as the compound of chemical formula 4 in claim 9,wherein R36 and R41 are L’NRaRb, wherein L’ is a single bond, Ra and Rb are a phenyl group, and R33-R35 , R37-R40 and R42 are hydrogen, and compound 10-14 in claim 12 ( see paragraphs [0164-0171]).
Further regards to claim 13, Lee et al. do not explicitly recite the organic electronic element further comprises a light efficiency enhancing layer formed on at least one surface of the first electrode and the second electrode, the surface being opposite to the organic material layer as instantly claimed. However, in view of the features disclosed of Lee et al. wherein an organic layer can further comprise an electron transport layer, which is a layer facilitating electron transport from the cathode to the light emitting layer [0182], the difference could be readily derived and obvious by a person of ordinary skilled in the art in view of design choice and routine experimentation.
Further regards to claims 14 and 15, Lee et al. do not explicitly recite the organic material layer comprises 2 or more stacks comprising a hole transport layer as instantly claimed or organic material layer further comprises a charge generation layer formed between the two or more stacks as instantly claimed. However, comprising a plurality of stacks and further comprising a charge generation layer would be obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art without any technical difficulty in view of design choice and routine experimentation.
Further regards to claim 16, Lee et al. do not explicitly disclose an electronic device comprising a control unit for driving the display device as instantly claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include a control unit to a display device of Lee et al. in view of design choice.
Further regards to claim 17, Lee et al. teach the organic electronic element is at least one of OLED ( claim 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2016-0091198 A1) 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_image10.png
361
335
media_image10.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.
Conclusion
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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