Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 15-16, 20, 25, 27-28, 32, 36-37, 39-43, 45 and 50 are objected to because of the following informalities. First, the use of “above” and “below” to refer to the positions of a mathematical expression or a chemical structure in the claims is not recommended because claim amendment during the prosecution may move the contents of the claims to different positions. Second, translation-caused awkward language needs to be removed. For example, “a ring A, a ring B…” should be corrected to “ring A, ring B…”, “the ring B and the ring D” should be corrected to “ring B and ring D”, and “in the formula (21)” should be corrected to “in formula (21)”. 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 1-51 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 recites rings A, B, C, D, E and F each to be an aryl ring or a heterocyclic ring, and then allows them to be absent, which is inconsistent. It is equivalent to claiming that A is a ring and it must be present and, at the same time, A may not be a ring (when it’s absent). Perhaps the phrase “ring A, ring B, ring C, ring D, ring E and ring F are each independently a cyclic structure” should be changed to “ring A, ring B, ring C, ring D, ring E and ring F are each independently absent or a cyclic structure”. Claim 1 also recites that, in formula 2, the subscript k can be 5, which is impossible because (n+m) is at least 2. The other claims are indefinite by dependency. In addition, claim 42 recites “formula (226) below” but said formula is absent from the claim.
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 1-8, 20-23, 28, 46-48 and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/014023 A1 to Bonus et al.
Regarding claim 1, Bonus et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises a host material HB, a TADF material EB, and a narrow-FWHM emitter SB, wherein EB transfers energy to SB, which emits light of max of 500-560 nm, and wherein
E(S1H) > E(S1E) > E(S1S)
(see abstract and page 3). Exemplary SB and EB include
PNG
media_image1.png
320
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
282
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
respectively (pages 132 & 135). These two compounds are representative of the claimed first and second compounds, respectively, wherein Y = B, Zb = Zg = N, rings A and D and E are benzene rings, rings B and F are absent; and k = n = m = 1, Dx = formula (22) where pa = 2; one ring G is a benzene ring and the other ring G is a furan ring, and R = substituted heterocyclic ring. Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable. See MPEP § 2131.02(II). So are claims 2-8, 46-48 and 50-51. The features of claims 20-23 are disclosed on page 100. Compound (171) of claim 28 is met by the last compound on page 100.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/014023 A1 to Bonus et al.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 24, the devices of claims 6 and 20 are disclosed by Bonus et al. as explained above. The prior art SB compound has a generic structure that may take the form
PNG
media_image3.png
224
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image4.png
220
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(p. 83), wherein Z4 may be a direct bond, and RA, VIII, XI, XV, XVII, XX and XXII each may be a hydrogen atom (pp. 88, 92, 93). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the device disclosed by Bonus et al. to arrive at the claimed devices without expecting any difficulty or criticality. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19, 25-27, 29-45 and 49 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The devices as defined in these claims are not disclosed or suggested by Bonus et al., which represents the closest prior art of record, and there is not an obvious reason for a POSITA to modify the device taught by Bonus et al., either alone or in combination with other prior art teachings, to arrive at the claimed devices.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights