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 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 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jong et al. (KR 2020-0081771) (hereafter “Jong”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1 and 5-7, Jong teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (page 61 of the machine translation). Jong teaches that the light emitting layer can comprise the following compound,
PNG
media_image1.png
130
169
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which meets applicant’s formula 1-1, where R1, R2, and R3 are hydrogen atoms, L-1 and L2 are direct bonds, Ar1 meets applicant’s formula 2-1, and Ar2 is a phenyl group (page 24 of the machine translation). X meets applicant’s formula
Regarding claims 8-10, the claims do not require the compound to comprise formula 3, 4, or 5, so the compound of Jong reads on the applicant’s claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (CN11170874) (hereafter “Dong”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1-6, 10, and 11, Dong teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, a second hole transporting layer (or electron blocking layer), a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (page 32 of the machine translation). Dong teaches that the host most of the light emitting layer have the following structure,
PNG
media_image2.png
109
163
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 32 of the machine translation). Dong teaches the second hole transporting layer (or electron blocking layer) comprises a compound that meets the following formula,
PNG
media_image3.png
328
828
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, where m can be 0, a can be 0, Ar1 can be an aryl or heteroaryl group, and Ar2 is a group represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
258
846
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(pages 2 and 3 of the machine translation). Dong teaches the following compounds that meet the above formula,
PNG
media_image5.png
180
134
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
166
153
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image7.png
152
140
media_image7.png
Greyscale
are few examples (pages 13-16 of the machine translation). Dong teaches that
PNG
media_image8.png
85
87
media_image8.png
Greyscale
as a substitute and equivalent for the benzocarbazole/carbazole groups in the compounds (pages 9-16 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbazole and benzocarbazole group in
PNG
media_image5.png
180
134
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
166
153
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image7.png
152
140
media_image7.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image8.png
85
87
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. The substitution would have been one preferred group and equivalent with another preferred group and equivalent. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compound to act in a similar manner as the compounds of Dong.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jong et al. (KR 2020-0081771) (hereafter “Jong”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, as applied to claims 1 and 5-10 above.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Jong teaches the following compounds
PNG
media_image9.png
125
165
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image10.png
147
177
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image11.png
124
169
media_image11.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (pages 22-30 of the machine translation). Jong teaches that
PNG
media_image12.png
53
90
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is a substitute for the carbazole groups and other benzocarbazole groups and teaches phenyl as a substitute for the groups attached at the N position on the carbazole/benzocarbazole groups (pages 22-30 of the machine translation). Jong teaches that these groups are equivalents to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbazole or benzocarbazole groups in the compounds of Jong with
PNG
media_image12.png
53
90
media_image12.png
Greyscale
or substitute the aryl group attached to N atom of the carbazole/benzocarbazole with phenyl group. The substitution would have been preferred groups for other preferred groups and the Jong teaches that the groups are equivalent to each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds to act in a similar manner. The substitution would lead to compounds that meet applicant’s compounds A51 and D11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759