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 § 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 1-20 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 claims 1-20, the phrase “spherocity greater than or equal to 0.4” is indefinite. The applicant’s do not define spherocity as it is a not term normally used in the prior art. The term sphericity is a known term and is a measure of how closely the shape of a physical object resembles that of a perfect sphere, but it is not clear if spherocity means the same as sphericity. Furthermore, it is unclear how the applicant’s calculated the sphericity for the different groups. It is unclear how the surface area and the volume of the groups are calculated if spherocity means that same as sphericity. The applicant has not provided any information in the specification of how this value is calculated.
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) 1-6, 9-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolohan et al. (US 2020/0168812) (hereafter “Wolohan”).
Regarding claims 1-6, 9-15, 19, and 20, Wolohan teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0033]). Wolohan teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a dopant (paragraph [0105]-[0112]). Wolohan teaches that the host material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
183
171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
178
170
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0104]). Wolohan teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in a consumer product (paragraph [0027]).
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, 9-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (Chem. Eur. J. 2011 17, 10871-10878) (hereafter “An”) in view of Kwong et al. (US 2016/0343951) (hereafter “Kwong”).
Regarding claims, 1-6, 9-15, and 17-19, An teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, a cathode (page 10874 right column last paragraph). An teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a dopant (page 10874 right column last paragraph). An teaches that the host material can be
PNG
media_image3.png
202
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 10872 Scheme 1 and page 10874 Table 3).
An does not teach where the host material meets the applicant’s claimed formula.
Kwong teaches host materials comprising a tetraphenylene group (paragraphs [0048] and [0049]). Kwong teaches that tetraphenylene group can be referred to heavy benzene and the heavier material increases the glass transition temperature of the host and making the materials more suitable for electroluminescent devices (paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the host material of An, so the benzene group in
PNG
media_image3.png
202
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
was changed to tetraphenylene group as taught by Kwong. The motivation would have been to improve the glass transition temperature of the material and make it a better material for the electroluminescent device. This would lead to a compound with the following structure,
PNG
media_image4.png
288
237
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson et al. (US 2018/0287087) teaches tetraphenylene host materials.
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