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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is missing the chemical formula 1 (. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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. The phrase “substituted or unsubstituted” in claim 1 takes its meaning from the description in the specification (pp. 8-9). Said description is identical to the content of claim 2. In other words, all of claim 2 must necessarily be present in claim 1, i.e., claim 2 does not alter 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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0037546 A1 to Sugino et al.
Regarding claim 1, Sugino et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises a plurality of host materials that comprise the following compound (see page 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
322
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
A species of this compound has a general structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
246
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
and two particular species of this compound are the following
PNG
media_image3.png
416
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(p. 99). These compounds are representative of the claimed compound. An example of an OLED comprising compound 642 as a host material is also provided (Table 5). Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 2-5, 7-8 and 10. Compound 642 is identical to compound 1-1 of claim 6.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0037546 A1 to Sugino et al.
Regarding claim 9, the device of claim 8 is disclosed by Sugino et al. as explained above. In the prior art device, the EML can include other host materials in addition to the compound cited above ([0215] & [0348]). While said device is not provided as an example, 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 such device without expecting any difficulty or negative consequences.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0037546 A1 to Sugino et al. in view of US 2020/0212312 A1 to Kang et al.
Sugino et al. teaches that the EML can have additional host materials as mentioned above, but fails to teach the compounds represented by formulae 13 and 14 in claim 11. However, Kang et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises two host materials: the first host is a compound having a triazine moiety and the second compound is a bicarbazole typified by
PNG
media_image4.png
394
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which is representative of the compound of formula 13. The use of the combination of host materials is said to impart improved efficiency and lifespan (p. 1). Therefore, since the host material disclosed by Sugino et al. is a compound having a triazine moiety, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the OLED disclosed by Sugino et al. by including the bicarbazole disclosed by Kang et al. as a second host material to further improve light-emitting efficiency and device operation lifetime. Claims 11-12, 14 and 16 are consequently unpatentable for being obvious. Claims 13 and 15 do not limit the device of claim 11 to the compound of formula 14 and they are unpatentable as well. The features of claim 17 are disclosed by Kang et al. in the examples.
Other Prior Art of Record
The compound of claim 1 is disclosed in many other documents. Notable examples include US 2020/0152883 A1 to Parham et al. (compound EG8 on page 81) and US 7,935,434 B2 to Tanaka et al. (see example 1-2 in Table 1).
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