CTNF 18/014,836 CTNF 95671 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-14, 17-20, and 24-25 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 recites in Chemical Formula 1 “A is a benzene ring fused with two adjacent pentagonal rings”. However, as shown in the structure below, A is drawn between two pyrrole rings. It is unclear if the “two adjacent pentagonal rings” are meant to refer to the drawn pyrrole rings, or if A is required to be a three-ring condensed structure comprising two 5-membered (pentagonal) rings fused to benzene, wherein the 5-membered rings are further fused to the drawn pyrrole rings. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as encompassing either of the above options. Chemical Formula 1: PNG media_image1.png 197 319 media_image1.png Greyscale Claims 2-14, 17-20, and 24-25 are rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claim 1. 07-36 AIA 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. 07-36-01 AIA Claim s 2 and 5 are 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, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As discussed above, Chemical Formula 1 recites A is a benzene ring fused with two adjacent pentagonal rings (i.e., a fused three ring structure). However, none of the formulae in claim 2 nor the compounds of claim 5 contain the two additional pentagonal rings as part of A as required by the definition of A in claim 1. For this reason, claims 2 and 5 fail to include all the limitations of claim 1 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14, 17-20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2019/0013490 A1) in view of Kim (English translation of WO 2016068458 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) and Zheng (US 2017/0025618 A1) . Regarding claims 1-14, 17-20, and 24-25 , Cho teaches an organic light emitting device having improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifetime by including a first host having a HOMO of 5.6 eV to 6.4 eV and a second host having a HOMO of 5.4 eV to 5.8 eV (abstract; ¶ [0008]-[0009]). Cho teaches examples of such devices including Experimental Example 1 which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer formed of hosts Compound 1-1 and Compound 2-4 and dopant GD-1, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (Table 1 on pg. 47; ¶ [0209]). Compound 1-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 3 (structure on pg. 33). 1-1: PNG media_image2.png 214 285 media_image2.png Greyscale 3: PNG media_image3.png 137 409 media_image3.png Greyscale Compound 1-1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formulas 3 and 3-4 ( claim 20 ) wherein: X 1 to X 3 are each N ( claim 12 ); Y is O; L is a single bond ( claim 13 ); Ar 21 is an unsubstituted C 18 aryl and Ar 22 and Ar 23 are each an unsubstituted C 6 aryl (phenyl) ( claims 14 and 18-19 ); Ar 21 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 4h wherein n2 and n5 are each 0 ( claim 17 ); R 21 is hydrogen; and f is an integer of 6. Additionally, Compound 1-1 reads on the 12 th claimed compound on pg. 188 of claim 24 . Compound 2-4 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2 (structure on pg. 43). 2-4: PNG media_image4.png 246 331 media_image4.png Greyscale 2: PNG media_image5.png 204 490 media_image5.png Greyscale Compound 2-4 reads on the claimed Chemical Formulas 2 and 2-1 ( claims 1 and 6 ) wherein: Ar 11 and Ar 12 are each an unsubstituted C 12 aryl (biphenyl) ( claims 7-8 ); R 11 and R 12 are not required to be present ( claim 9 ); and d and e are each 0 ( claim 10 ). Additionally, Compound 2-4 reads on the 8 th claimed compound of claim 11 . Cho fails to teach a third host compound in the light emitting layer. Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a light-emitting layer comprising a first host, a second host, and a third host, wherein the three hosts are different materials (¶ [7]). Such a device obtains improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan compared to a device including a light emitting layer to which one or two hosts are applied (¶ [10]). Particularly, the first host, second host, and third host are included in the light-emitting layer in a weight ratio of 10 to 60: 60 to 10: 5 to 30 (¶ [43]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a third host in the light emitting layer, wherein Compound 1-1, Compound 2-4, and the third host are provided in a weight ratio of 10 to 60: 60 to 10: 5 to 30, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan, as taught by Kim. Cho in view of Kim fail to teach a third host that reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1. Zheng teaches compounds represented by Formula I and Formula II for use as hosts in organic electroluminescent devices, wherein the compounds provide devices with longer lifetime and improved charge transport properties (abstract; ¶ [0003], [0017], and [0174]). Examples of compounds represented by Formulas I and II include Compound A2, as exemplified in Device 1 (structure on pg. 8; Table D1 on pg. 142). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a compound of Zeng’s Formula I and Formula II for the third host, and particularly Compound A2 as exemplified in Device 1, based on the teaching of Zheng. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the device with longer lifetime and improved charge transport properties, as taught by Zheng. Compound A2 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1. A2: PNG media_image6.png 211 329 media_image6.png Greyscale 1: PNG media_image1.png 197 319 media_image1.png Greyscale Compound A2 reads on the claimed Chemical Formulas 1 and 1-5 ( claims 1-2 ) wherein: A is a benzene ring; L 1 and L 2 are each a single bond ( claim 3 ); Ar 1 is an unsubstituted C 18 aryl (terphenyl) and Ar 2 is an unsubstituted C 12 aryl (biphenyl) ( claim 4 ); R 1 to R 3 are each hydrogen; and a is 4, b is 2, and c is 4. Additionally, Compound A2 reads on the 14 th claimed compound of claim 5 . Per claim 25 , as discussed above, Compound 1-1, Compound 2-4, and the third host are provided in a weight ratio of 10 to 60: 60 to 10: 5 to 30. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm. 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. /BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/014,836 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/014,836 Page 3 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/014,836 Page 4 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/014,836 Page 5 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/014,836 Page 6 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/014,836 Page 7 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/014,836 Page 8 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/014,836 Page 9 Art Unit: 1786
Prosecution Insights