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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “where in at least one or two of A1 to A4 represent nitrogen, and the others represent carbon”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “where in at least one or two of A1 to A4 represent nitrogen, and the remaining of A1 to A4 represent carbon” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “where in at least one or two of A5 to A8 represent nitrogen, and the others represent carbon”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “where in at least one or two of A5 to A6 represent nitrogen, and the remaining of A5 to A8 represent carbon” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites the phrase “at least one of a transistor and a substrate”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of a transistor or a substrate” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites the phrase “at least one of a microphone, a camera, an operation button, an external connection and a speaker”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of a microphone, a camera, an operation button, an external connection or a speaker” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites the phrase “at least one of a housing, a cover, and a support”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of a housing, a cover, or a support” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites the phrase “at least one of a transistor and a substrate”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of a transistor or a substrate” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites the phrase “at least one of a microphone, a camera, an operation button, an external connection and a speaker”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of a microphone, a camera, an operation button, an external connection or a speaker” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the phrase “at least one of a housing, a cover, and a support”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of a housing, a cover, or a support” Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20130070431A, cited on IDS filed on 10/19/2023, see attached English language translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al discloses the following compound (Page 13 – Compound 34 of KR 20130070431A):
PNG
media_image1.png
292
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to General Formula G1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A1 and A5 are N;
A2 to A4 are C;
A5 to A6 are C;
B2 is hydrogen; and
Htuni1 and Htuni2 are carbazole groups, i.e. a hole transport skeletons.
In the compound disclosed by the reference B1 is not hydrogen given that the central ring of the compound is a pyridine and not a benzene. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 1 ([0037] of KR 20130070431A):
PNG
media_image3.png
270
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where X1 to X14 are each independently a carbon or a nitrogen atom, at least one of X1 to X14 is nitrogen, and R3 and R3 are hydrogen (see Page 3 of translation). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where X9 is carbon and R3, corresponding to B1 in General Formula G1 of the claims, is hydrogen.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Htuni1 and Htuni2 are carbazole groups.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Htuni1 and Htuni2 are carbazole groups corresponding to Formula Ht-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
234
170
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where R50 and R51 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by General Formula G2:
PNG
media_image5.png
260
614
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R8 and R11 to R18 represent hydrogen.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference does not correspond to General Formula G3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
304
634
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. the compound comprises carbazole groups and not aromatic amine substituents as required by General Formula G3 of the claims. However, the reference discloses that in Formula 1 ([0037] of KR 20130070431A):
PNG
media_image3.png
270
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 and R6 can be (Page 2 of KR 20130070431A and Pages 3-4 of translation):
PNG
media_image7.png
96
90
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where Ar1 and Ar2 are C6 aryl groups (Page 4 of translation). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses General Formula G3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
304
634
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R21 to R30 and R31 to R40 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by General Formula G4:
PNG
media_image8.png
252
504
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R8 and R11 to R18 represent hydrogen.
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by General Formula G5:
PNG
media_image9.png
268
560
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic electroluminescent emitting device, i.e. a light emitting device, comprising the disclosed compound (Page 3 of translation).
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic electroluminescent layer comprises a light emitting, or EL layer, between first and second electrodes, where the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound (Page 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic electroluminescent layer comprises a light emitting, or EL layer, between first and second electrodes, where the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound (Page 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the electroluminescent device is supported by a transparent substrate ([0099] of translation).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the electroluminescent device is supported by a transparent substrate ([0099] of translation). Accordingly, the reference discloses a lighting device comprising a support as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al discloses the following compound (Page 13 – Compound 34 of KR 20130070431A):
PNG
media_image1.png
292
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not correspond to Compound 100 of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
232
538
media_image10.png
Greyscale
;
however, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 1 ([0037] of KR 20130070431A):
PNG
media_image3.png
270
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where X1 to X14 are each independently a carbon or a nitrogen atom, at least one of X1 to X14 is nitrogen, and R3 can be a C1-9 alkyl (see Pages 3-4 of translation). Furthermore, the carbazole groups in the compound have the formula:
PNG
media_image11.png
100
212
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where R8 and R9 are C1-9 alkyls such as tert-butyl ([0053] and [0069] of the translation). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 100 of the claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic electroluminescent emitting device, i.e. a light emitting device, comprising the disclosed compound (Page 3 of translation).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic electroluminescent layer comprises a light emitting, or EL layer, between first and second electrodes, where the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound (Page 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic electroluminescent layer comprises a light emitting, or EL layer, between first and second electrodes, where the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound (Page 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the electroluminescent device is supported by a transparent substrate ([0099] of translation).
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the electroluminescent device is supported by a transparent substrate ([0099] of translation). Accordingly, the reference discloses a lighting device comprising a support as recited in the present claims.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20130070431A, cited on IDS filed on 10/19/2023, see attached English language translation) as applied to claims 1-12 and 14-18 above and in view of McIntyre et al (US 2008/0231741).
The discussion with respect to Lee et al as set forth in Paragraph 13 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting device comprises a camera as recited in the present claims.
McIntyre et al discloses that conventional digital cameras typically provide a display element, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) or Optical Light-Emitting Device (OLED) component that allows the photographer to use the camera more effectively ([0003]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the organic electroluminescent device disclosed by Lee et al et al in a camera, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of known device for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting device comprises a camera as recited in the present claims.
McIntyre et al discloses that conventional digital cameras typically provide a display element, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) or Optical Light-Emitting Device (OLED) component that allows the photographer to use the camera more effectively ([0003]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the organic electroluminescent device disclosed by Lee et al et al in a camera, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of known device for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights