DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Restriction/Election Requirement
The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s election of Group I (directed to device of Claims 1-18) in the Response filed 07/09/26 as set forth in the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 06/01/26.
The election reads on Claims 1-18.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 19 and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The Applicant argues that “[i]n view of the related technology of all the inventive groups and in view of the expense that would be imposed upon the Applicant by multiple applications and multiple patents,” the restriction/election requirement should be withdrawn (pages 1-2). The Office directs the Applicant for the reasons for the restriction/election requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action, wherein the combination does not require the particulars of the subcombination (i.e., the specific triazine compound of Applicant’s Formula 1). Hence, the restriction/election requirement is FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites the following: “the two or more triazine moieties connected the linker of the C6-C60 aryl group are located at positions . . .” (lines 17-18) which must be replaced by the following: “the two or more triazine moieties connected to the linker of a C6-C60 aryl group are located at positions . . .” for consistency and grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites that “the two or more triazine moieties connected [to] the linker of the C6-C60 aryl group are located . . . at positions where one hydrogen atom is present between the two or more triazine moieties” which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear if, when more than two triazine moieties are present, 1) each and every triazine moiety is separated by another triazine moiety on the linker by one hydrogen atom or 2) there exists at least one pair of triazine moieties that is separated by one hydrogen atom on the linker (among the plurality of triazine moieties). The Office has taken the former interpretation for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (KR 10-2021-0052085).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication KR 10-2021-0052085 (herein referred to as “Hong et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Hong et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: substrate (1), anode (2), hole-injecting layer (7), hole-transporting layer (3), electron-blocking layer (8), light-emitting layer (4), hole-blocking layer (9), electron-injecting/transporting layer (5), and cathode (6) which can emit at the top or bottom for the construction of organic light-emitting devices such as displays (Fig. 2 of Hong et al.; [0003], [0026], [0174], [0176]). Hong et al. discloses that the anode comprises material such as ITO ([0148]); the cathode comprises materials such as magnesium ([0150]). Hong et al. discloses compounds such as the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
128
150
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 31 of Hong et al.) (first compound) (which comprises naphthalene linker substituted by directly adjacent or separated by one hydrogen triazines comprising an aliphatic moiety of Applicant’s Formula 1-1 (with R1-3 = n-propyl, isobutyl, or ethyl linked to each other)) to comprise the hole-blocking layer and/or electron-injecting/transporting layer ([0128], [0166]); the electron-injecting layer comprises metal complex compounds such as 8-hydroxyquinolinato lithium ([0168], [0170]).
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (KR 10-2021-0052085) as applied above and in further view of Nakamura (US 2006/0113905 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication KR 10-2021-0052085 (herein referred to as “Hong et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Hong et al. discloses the electronic apparatus of Claim 17 as shown above. Hong et al. discloses the use of organic electroluminescent (EL) devices (OLEDs) or the construction of a wide array of devices, including displays ([0003], [0176]). However, Hong et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific electronic apparatus as recited in the claims.
Nakamura discloses a method of display device construction utilizing organic EL devices which can suppress degradation and realize high display quality and long lifetime (Abstract; [0008]). The construction comprises a thin-film transistor (20) comprising a source electrode (20S) and a drain electrode (20D) electrically connected to the anode (41) of an organic EL device (40); a polarizer plate PL further exists on the display to suppress ambient light reflection (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to utilize the method as disclosed by Nakamura for the construction of displays comprising the organic EL device as disclosed by Hong et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Nakamura, which is directed to a known and viable method of display device construction utilizing OLEDs, the use of which results in the suppression of degradation and high display quality and long lifetime.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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, Jennifer A Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights