CTNF 18/027,647 CTNF 84780 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Specification 06-16 AIA 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 “The present invention relates to” should be deleted. 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 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 16-30 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 independent claims 16 and 28 , “R + is independently at each occurrence a straight-chain or branched alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms”. However, the claims as written are indefinite and unclear. However, 1 or 2 C atoms cannot be branched as recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 17 and 19 recite “the host material 1”. The claims as written are indefinite and unclear. Instant claim 16 recites “at least one compound of the formula (1) as host material 1”. It is not clear if applicants intends there to be only one host material 1 or more than one host material 1 as recited in dependent claim 22. Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “ the at least one host material 1” as recited by claim 22 in view of claim consistency. Claim 18 recites “the host material 2”. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Instant claim 16 recites “at least one compound of the formula (1) as host material 2”. It is not clear if applicants intends there to be only one host material 2 or more than one host material 2 as recited in dependent claim 22. Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “ the at least one host material 2” as recited by claim 22 in view of claim consistency. Claim 21 recites “ The organic electroluminescent device according to Claim 16, characterized in that this organic layer “. However, the claim as written is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear what applicant means by “this organic layer”, are there multiple organic layers or only one organic layer or an additional organic layer contained in the organic electroluminescent device of claim 16. It is noted that claim 16 recites “at least one organic layer”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests applicants amend the claim to recite “ characterized in that the at least one organic layer “ in view of claim consistency. Claim 23 recites “ The organic electroluminescent device according to Claim 16, characterized in that the organic layer “. However, the claim as written is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear if applicant intends only one organic layer to be present or more than one organic layer. It is noted that claim 16 recites “at least one organic layer”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests applicants amend the claim to recite “ characterized in that the at least one organic layer “ in view of claim consistency. Claim 23 recites “ the hole-injecting material and hole-transporting material of which is a monoamine that does not contain a carbazole unit.” However, the claim as written is unclear and indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no positive recitation of a hole-injecting material and hole-transporting material in claims 16 or 23. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 24 recites “ A process for producing the device according to Claim 16, characterized in that the organic layer “. However, the claim as written is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear if applicant intends only one organic layer to be present or more than one organic layer. It is noted that claim 16 recites “at least one organic layer”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests applicants amend the claim to recite “ characterized in that the at least one organic layer “ in view of claim consistency. Claims 21-22 and 25-27 recite “the light-emitting layer “. However, the claims as written are unclear and indefinite. It is not clear if applicant intends only one light-emitting layer to be present or more than one light-emitting layer. It is noted that claim 16 recites “at least one light-emitting layer”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests applicants amend the claims to recite “the at least one light-emitting layer “ in view of claim consistency. Claims 25-27 recite “ the at least one phosphorescent emitter”. However, the claims as written are indefinite and unclear. There is no positive recitation of a hole-injecting material and hole-transporting material in claims 16, 23 or 25-27. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggest amending the claims to depend from claim 22. Claims 17-27 depend on claim 16; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 29-30 depend on claim 28; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required. Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Kurihara et al. ( WO 2019/058200 A; see abstract, claims and examples) teach an organic electroluminescent device comprising a mixture including a benzofuropyrimidine derivative or benzothienopyrimidine derivative. The closest prior art Kurihara et al. (US 2020/0259099, which is English equivalent of WO 2019/058200 A) discloses a similar OLED ( example 4; fig. 10) comprising an anode (ITSO) 901 , a cathode 903 and an organic layer comprising a light-emitting layer 913 including a compound similar to the formula (1) as host material 1 ( compound 130) and a compound of formula 2 as host material 2 ( compound PCCP in paragraphs [0085, 0214 and 242]). However, Kurihara et al. fails to explicitly teach [L]-R* can only occurs once as instantly claimed . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/027,647 Page 2 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/027,647 Page 3 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/027,647 Page 4 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/027,647 Page 5 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/027,647 Page 6 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/027,647 Page 7 Art Unit: 1737
Prosecution Insights