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 .
Specification
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 claim language “ The present disclosure 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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 10 have formulas that show ellipsis (…); however, applicants have failed to define them in terms of the claims. Examiner suggests deleting or defining the ellipsis in the claims.
“The first host compound” and “The second host compound” should be written as “ the at least one first host compound” and “the at least one second compound” in view of claim consistency in claim 1.
The word “compound” is misspelled and should be corrected to “compound” in claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (KR 2012-0078326 A; citations from English translation US 2013/0299794 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Jung et al. teach an organic electroluminescent device including an organic electroluminescent compound represented by formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
227
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
( see abstract, claims, examples and specifically B10:
PNG
media_image2.png
179
145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or B28:
PNG
media_image3.png
161
167
media_image3.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 1A as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 110804053 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al. teach an organic electroluminescent device including an organic electroluminescent compound represented by formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
111
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
( see abstract, claims, examples and specifically compound ET-48:
PNG
media_image5.png
128
102
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) meeting the limitation of formula 1A as instantly claimed.
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) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 2012-0078326 A; citations from English translation US 2013/0299794 A1) as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Jung et al. do not explicitly recite “wherein L1 represents a substituted or unsubstituted dibenzofuranylene, a substituted or unsubstituted dibenzothiophenylene, a substituted or unsubstituted carbazolylene, a substituted or unsubstituted fluorenylene, or a substituted or unsubstituted spirobifluorenylene” as instantly recited by claim 11 or wherein the compound represented by formula 1A is one of the compounds recited in claim 12 as instantly claimed. However, it is noted that Jung et al. recognize that L substituents in chemical formula I may be selected from a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 arylene or a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C30 heteroarylene group [0011-0019]. Furthermore, Jung et al. teach the substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C30 heteroarylene group having the electronic properties may be substituted or unsubstituted carbazolyl group [0019] meeting the limitation of a substituted or unsubstituted carbazolylene as recited in claim 11 or compounds C-116 to C151 as recited in claim 12. Although Jung et al. do not explicitly show any compound with L substituents having a substituted or unsubstituted carbazolylene, Jung et al. recognize that these are commonly known substituents groups to aid in electronic properties of organic electroluminescent devices [0019]. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify formula I of Jung et al. to include L substituents having a substituted or unsubstituted carbazolylene in view of electronic properties and in view of routine experimentation to obtain one of the chemical formulas represented by C-116 to C-151 as recited by instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed. The closest prior art , Jung et al. (KR 2012-0078326 A; citations from English translation US 2013/0299794 A1) does not explicitly recite a plurality of host materials comprising at least one first host compound represented by formula (1) and at least one second host compound represented by formula (2) 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