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 Objections
Claims 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, it appears that claim 2 contains many redundancies as compared to the claim 1. It appears the limitations of the variables R4 to R8 are only further limited while all other variables are maintained. It is suggested to delete the redundancies including Formula 1 and the variables of the Formula 1 including Ar1, Ar2, R1, R2, R3, n1, n2, n3, L1, and L2.
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.
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.
Regarding claims 1-2, Applicant claims Ar2 being a dibenzo 5-membered group represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
153
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the dibenzo 5-membered group bonds to the L2 of Formula 1.
This structure is indefinite. The bond from the L2 of Formula 1 is extended to the X containing 5-membered ring (i.e. see the terminal of the bond pointed by an arrow in the figure). When the bond from L2 is connected to the atom X, it is unclear which part of X is required to be connected to the bond from L2, because in the definition of R4 and R5 of the claims 1 and 2, there is no option to select R4 and/or R5 to be the connecting point to the bond to L2. For example, when X is C(R4R5), it is unclear which part of the R4 and R5 is bonded to the L2.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the bond from the L2 of Formula 1 can be connected to the dibenzo 5-membered group in a manner that any one of hydrogen atoms of the dibenzo 5-membered group is replaced by the bond from the L2 of Formula 1.
Regarding claims 2-15, claims 2-15 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 1.
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 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 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.
(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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2019/0016666 A1, hereafter Jeong) in view of Miyake et al. (US 2018/0331290 A1, hereafter Miyake).
Regarding claims 1-16, Jeong discloses an arylamine compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0015])) and exemplifies Compound 1 ([0075]). Jeong exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 1 in [0120]-[0121]) comprising an anode, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer (Compound 1), an emission layer, and a cathode.
PNG
media_image2.png
361
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Jeong has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 98 of claim 12. The only difference is that the biphenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar2 of Formula 1 of Jeong (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) is required to be a phenyl-naphthyl-substituted phenyl
PNG
media_image3.png
78
79
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; however, Jeong does teach that Ar2 can be a substituted aryl having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, wherein the substituent can be a substituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms ([0023]-[0024]).
Miyake discloses an arylamine compound (Formula 1) necessarily comprising a substituted naphthyl group and used for an organic light emitting device ([0002], [0005]).
PNG
media_image4.png
519
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Miyake teaches that the compound of Miyake provides improved thermal and charge tolerance, and restrained crystallization such that the organic light emitting device comprising the compound provides high emission efficiency, low driving voltage, and long life ([0093]; compare Example 5 comprising Compound 53 with Comparative example 1 comprising Compound X-1 in Table 1). The Compound 53 of Miyake has a phenyl-naphthyl-substituted phenyl
PNG
media_image3.png
78
79
media_image3.png
Greyscale
instead of biphenyl of comparative Compound X-1 (see the part enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1 of Jeong by substituting the biphenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar2 of Formula 1 of Jeong with a phenyl-naphthyl-substituted phenyl
PNG
media_image3.png
78
79
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, as taught by Jeong and Miyake.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide improved thermal and charge tolerance, and restrained crystallization such that the organic light emitting device comprising the compound provides high emission efficiency, low driving voltage, and long life based on the teaching of Miyake.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image5.png
422
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Jeong as modified by Miyake which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 98 of the instant claim 12, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-12.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Jeong as modified by Miyake comprising an anode, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer (Compound of Jeong as modified by Miyake), an emission layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron blocking layer and the emission layer are a functional layer; and the organic light emitting device comprises an electronic device, an electronic component, and an organic electroluminescent device, meeting all the limitations of claims 13-16.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2019/0016666 A1) in view of Miyake et al. (US 2018/0331290 A1) and of Pang et al. (A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 15, the Organic light emitting device of Jeong as modified by Miyake reads on all the features of claim 13 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer (Compound of Jeong as modified by Miyake), an emission layer, and a cathode.
Jeong in view of Miyake dos not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Jeong as modified by Miyake; however, Jeong does teach that an organic light emitting device can be incorporated into a display device ([0002]).
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin film transistor (“B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the flexible display provides light weight, non-breakable, and rollable form factor (Abstract).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Jeong as modified by Miyake by incorporating it into a flexible display device, as taught by Jeong and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide light weight, non-breakable, and rollable form factor, based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The resultant device is an electronic device (display device) of Jeong as modified by Miyake and Pang comprising the Organic light emitting device of Jeong as modified by Miyake.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786