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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 7-9 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.
Claims 7-9 recite the limitation "general formulas (3a) to (3z) given above" in lines 15-16, 12-13 and 7-8 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of further examination, the “general formulas (3a) to (3z) given above” are being interpreted as those recited in claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0186106).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11: Li et al. teaches a composition comprising a polymer having a molecular weight of 5,000-2,000,000 (high molecular weight compound) and a crosslinkable low-molecular weight compound with two crosslinkable groups, wherein the composition crosslinks by heating (thermally crosslinkable) ([0010], [0019]-[0021], and [0026]).
Regarding Claim 2: Li et al. teaches the crosslinkable low-molecular weight compound having two acrylate structures ([0026]).
Regarding Claims 3-4: Li et al. teaches the crosslinkable low-molecular weight compound as a compound such as bisphenol A diacrylate, a compound of the following structure ([0026]):
PNG
media_image1.png
160
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
reading on a compound of general formula (1) wherein A is a group of formula A1, L1 is an alkylene group, and L2 is an a phenylene group.
Regarding Claim 12: Li et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a pair of electrodes and an organic layer between the electrodes, the organic layer formed from the composition comprising the polymer and crosslinkable low-molecular weight compound ([0009]).
Regarding Claims 13-16: Li et al. teaches that the organic layer may be a hole transporting layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole injection layer, or a light emitting layer ([0038]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0186106) in view of Togashi et al. (Intl. Pub. No. WO 2018/168667A1, English equivalent US Pub. No. 2019/0378989 used for citation purposes).
Li et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding Claims 5-7: Li et al. teaches the polymer having a molecular weight of 5,000-2,000,000 ([0019]). Li et al. teaches the polymer having a repeating units of ([0049]):
PNG
media_image2.png
190
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
reading on general formula (2) wherein Ar1-2 are arylene, R3-4 are H, and X,Y, and Z are H. and general formula (3a) wherein R5-6 are H.
Li et al. does not teach with sufficient specificity the claimed range of 10,000-1,000,000. However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select MW values within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success as such values are disclosed by Li et al. as being suitable for the invention.
Li et al. does not teach the polymer wherein in general formula (2) at least one of X, Y, and Z represents an aryl group, or comprising a structural unit of one of general formulas (4a)-(4z). However, Togashi et al. teaches polymers of the following structure (Pg. 26 of English equivalent):
PNG
media_image3.png
262
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
containing a structural unit reading on general formula (2) wherein Ar1-2 are arylene, R3-4 are H, and X and Z are phenyl and Y is H and a structural unit reading on general formula (4e) wherein R5 is H. Li et al. and Togashi et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymeric materials for organic electroluminescent devices having transport capability. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the polymer of Togashi et al. in the composition of Li et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. suggests that the polymer is not particularly limited as long as it has a carrier transporting ability ([0012]) and Togashi et al. teaches that the polymer of the invention have high transport capability, heat resistance, and thin film stability ([0017] and [0033]-[0043]). Furthermore, unit corresponding to general formula (4e) in the polymer of Togashi et al. would serve to improve thermal crosslinking ([0569] of English equivalent), and Li et al. teaches that the polymer preferably contains a reactive group which reacts with a functional group of a crosslinking agent ([0034]).
Regarding Claims 8-9: Li et al. teaches the polymer having a molecular weight of 5,000-2,000,000 ([0019]).
Li et al. does not teach with sufficient specificity the claimed range of 10,000-1,000,000. However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select MW values within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success as such values are disclosed by Li et al. as being suitable for the invention.
Li et al. does not teach the polymer with the specific monomer units as claimed. However, Togashi et al. teaches polymers having repeating units such as
PNG
media_image4.png
78
108
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in 30-90 mol% and
PNG
media_image5.png
266
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in 5 mol% or greater, wherein R is H, alkyl, cyano, halogen ([0156]-[0171] and Figs. 1 and 47). Li et al. and Togashi et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymeric materials for organic electroluminescent devices having transport capability. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include polymers of Togashi et al. having the claimed monomers and would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. suggests that the polymer is not particularly limited as long as it has a carrier transporting ability ([0012]) and Togashi et al. teaches that the polymer of the invention comprising such monomers have high transport capability, heat resistance, and thin film stability, and solvent solubility ([0017], [0033]-[0043], and [0159]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0186106).
Li et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above.
Li et al. does not teach the composition comprising two or more of the high molecular weight compounds. However, at the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include more than one of the high molecular weight compounds of Li et al. and would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP 2144.06).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 September 18, 2025