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 .
Priority
The instant application was effectively filed on 11/03/2022, but claims priority to a US provisional patent (App. No.: 63/277,747) filed on 11/10/2021.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 claims the compound of claim 1, wherein Ar1 and Ar5 each represent phenyl. Ar5 is not defined by Formula 1 or within the specification therefore it is unclear which portion of the compound Ar5 refers to. Only Ar1 and Ar3 are represented by Formula 1, so the claim will be interpreted as referring to Ar1 and Ar3 each representing phenyl.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 will be interpreted as Ar1 and Ar3 each representing phenyl instead of Ar1 and Ar5 each representing phenyl.
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.
(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.
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0301629 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches compounds 1-476 [pg. 26], 1-2624 [pg. 28], and 1-2691 [pg. 37] which read on Applicants’ Formula 1 (shown below)
PNG
media_image1.png
245
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
290
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 and X2 are each N,
Y, Y1a, Y4a, Y5a, Y9a, Y10a, Y1b, Y2b, Y3b, Y4b, Y5b, Y6b, Y7b, Y8b, Y9b, and Y10b are each C,
L1 and L2 are each no bond, L3 and L4 are each a linking atom (C) substituted with two R substituents (methyl),
Ar1 and Ar3 are each phenyl,
R is an alkyl (methyl), R1 and R2 are each either an alkyl (methyl) or a hydrogen, R3– R5 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image3.png
260
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
290
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 and X2 are each N,
Y, Y1a, Y4a, Y5a, Y9a, Y10a, Y1b, Y2b, Y3b, Y4b, Y5b, Y6b, Y7b, Y8b, Y9b, and Y10b are each C,
L1–L4 are each no bond,
Ar1 is a carbazole, Ar3 is a phenyl,
R is not present, R1– R5 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image4.png
197
222
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
290
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 and X2 are each N,
Y, Y1a, Y4a, Y5a, Y9a, Y10a, Y1b, Y2b, Y3b, Y4b, Y5b, Y6b, Y7b, Y8b, Y9b, and Y10b are each C,
L1, L3, and L4 are each no bond, L2 is a linking atom (O),
Ar1 and Ar3 are each phenyl,
R is not present, R1– R5 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, 1-476 reads on Applicants’ limitation since L1 and L2 are each no bond while L3 and L4 are each a linking atom (C).
Regarding Claim 3 and 5, 1-2691 reads on Applicants’ limitation since L1, L3, and L4 are each no bond while L2 is a linking atom (O).
Regarding Claim 6, as stated above in the 112(b) rejection, Ar5 is not defined in Formula 1. However, Ar3 is defined. Therefore claim 6 will be interpreted as Ar1 and Ar3 each representing phenyl. 1-476 reads on Applicants’ limitations since Ar1 and Ar3 each represent phenyl.
Regarding Claim 7, 1-2624 reads on Applicants’ limitation since Ar1 represents carbazole.
Regarding Claim 8, 1-2624 reads on Applicants’ limitation since Ar1 is represented by a carbazole (shown below), wherein U represents NR8 with R8 representing an aryl.
PNG
media_image5.png
149
103
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, 1-2624 reads on Applicants’ limitation since Ar3 is represented by a phenyl (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
63
85
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, 1-476 reads on Applicants’ limitation since it is represented by the structure shown below, wherein Y3 and Y4 are CR6R7, and R6–R7 are each an alkyl (methyl).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
155
277
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, 1-2691 reads on Applicants’ limitation since it is represented by the structure shown below,
PNG
media_image4.png
197
222
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
151
278
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein Y2 is O, while Ar1 and Ar3 are represented by the structures below, respectively.
PNG
media_image9.png
80
111
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
65
80
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, 1-476 reads on Applicant’s limitation since 1-476 and the structure below are identical wherein R1, R2, R6, and R7 are each an alkyl (methyl).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
135
150
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, 14, and 15, Hatakeyama teaches an organic electroluminescent element comprising a pair of electrodes composed of a positive electrode and a negative electrode and a light emitting layer disposed between the pair of electrodes, in which the light emitting layer comprises at least one of a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by the following general formula (1) and a polycyclic aromatic compound multimer having a plurality of structures represented by the following general formula (1), and an anthracene-based compound represented by the following general formula (3) [0009] -– [0010]. Hatakeyama’s Formula (1) describes compounds 1-476 [pg. 26], 1-2624 [pg. 28], and 1-2691 [pg. 37]. As discussed above, those compounds read on Applicants’ Formula 1, therefore satisfying the limitation of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Hatakeyama further teaches an anthracene-based compound represented by general formula (3) functions as a host [0127], reading on Applicants’ limitation of claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, Hatakeyama teaches an organic electroluminescent element having a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic aromatic compound or a multimer thereof as a dopant material and a specific anthracene-based compound as a host material, and a display apparatus and a lighting apparatus using the same [0001]. The polycyclic aromatic compound is defined by Hatakeyama’s Formula (1), which describes compounds 1-476 [pg. 26], 1-2624 [pg. 28], and 1-2691 [pg. 37]. Therefore, Hatakeyama teaches a formulation of a compound that reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and an anthracene-based compound, satisfying Applicants’ limitation of claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hatakeyama2 (US 2015/0236274 A1) teaches compounds that read on Applicants’ Formula 1.
Hatakeyama3 (US 2018/0094000 A1) teaches compounds that read on Applicants’ Formula 1.
Hatakeyama4 (US 2019/0058124 A1) teaches compounds that read on Applicants’ Formula 1.
Joo et al. (US 2020/0161552 A1) teaches compounds that read on Applicants’ Formula 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789