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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on August 30, 2022.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on July 25, 2023.
Claims 1 – 16 have been canceled.
Claims 17 – 34 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 25, 2023, October 24, 2023, and February 21, 2024 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objection
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites that the device contains a “quinoide compound” and then proceeds to define that phrase. Examiner notes that special definitions for terms used in the claims are to be in the specification of the application as per MPEP 2173.05(a). As the particularly recited definition of “quinoide compound” is already provided in the specification, the definition in the claim is duplicative and unnecessary.
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 16 – 21, 23 – 25, and 27 – 34 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, the claim states that the term quinoide compound “includes a compound which…” This renders the claim indefinite because the word “include” suggests that the definition is not closed and it is not clear what additional structures or compounds may be included in the definition. Furthermore, the definition for the quinoide compound is “a moiety that is derived from a compound comprising an annelated aromatic system or non-annelated aromatic system…” This renders the claim indefinite because it appears to only require a particular reactant and it is not clear what features of the reactant, if any, are required to be in the final compound.
For Examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as reading on at least any quinoide based compound.
Claims 17 – 21, 23 – 25, and 27 – 34 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 30 – 33 are all dependent on claim 16. Claims 30 – 33 all refer to “formula (II), (IIa), and/or (IIc).” However, claim 16 does not recite formula (IIa) or formula (IIc), therefore the claims appear to lack antecedent basis. Additionally, formula (II) does not contain the variables X1 and X2, which is being defined in claims 32 and 33.
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 17 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR20180012193A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claim 17, Cha teaches:
An organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode layer, a cathode layer, a hole injection layer, at least two light-emitting units and at least one charge generation layer, wherein at least one charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer; wherein each light-emitting unit comprises at least one light-emitting layer, wherein each of the at least one charge generation layers is disposed independently between a set of two adjacent light-emitting units of the at least two light-emitting units, wherein the hole injection layer is closer to the anode layer than the p-type charge generation layer ([0036]: “Fig. 3 illustrates an example of an organic light-emitting device comprising a substrate (1), an anode (2), and a cathode (4), and two units comprising a hole injection layer (5a, 5b), a hole transport layer (6a, 6b), a light-emitting layer (3a, 3b), and an electron transport layer (7a, 7b) between the anode and the cathode, and a charge generation layer (8) between the units.”)
Wherein the hole injection layer comprises a first hole transport matrix compound and a compound of formula (I), whereby the compound of formula (I) is a quinoide compound ([0185]: “According to one embodiment of the present specification, the first organic layer comprises a hole injection layer, and the hole injection layer comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1.” Cha teaches that Chemical Formula 1 is represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
158
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0007]). Particular compounds within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 include the compounds on Pages 41 – 44, such as
PNG
media_image2.png
130
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on Page 44. This compound contains a substituted aryl substituent as required by claim 23 and has a molecular weight of 738, which is greater than 340 as required by claim 24. This compound reads on formula (II)
PNG
media_image3.png
112
164
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in claims 22, 26, 27 and 28, wherein n is 0 so that X3 does not exist, X1 and X2 are CR1aR2a and R1a is cyano, and R2a is a substituted C6 aryl, where the substituents are selected from F and CN and ring A is selected from
PNG
media_image4.png
70
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are H; and R3 and R4 are a substituted C6 aryl where the substituent is cyano. X1 is represented by Formula (XXa)
PNG
media_image5.png
124
228
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 32, where Z3 is N and the remaining Z atoms are CY where Y is F.)
Whereby the p-type charge generation layer comprises a second hole transport matrix compound and a compound of formula (II), different from the compound of formula (I), whereby the compound of formula (II) is a quinoide compound and whereby the compound of formula (II) contains at least one substituted or unsubstituted aryl substituent or at least one substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl substituent ([0186]: “According to one embodiment of the present specification, the first organic layer comprises a charge generating layer, and the charge generating layer comprises a compound represented by the chemical formula 1.” Cha teaches that Chemical Formula 1 is represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
158
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0007]). Particular compounds within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 include the compounds on Pages 41 – 44, such as
PNG
media_image6.png
136
120
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on Page 44. This compound contains a substituted C5 heteroaryl substituent that is a six-membered heteroaromatic ring as required by claims 17 – 20 and which is represented by
PNG
media_image7.png
100
168
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 30 wherein B3 is N and the remaining B atoms are CL where L is F. The heteroaryl substituent is represented by
PNG
media_image8.png
90
102
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 32. This compound has a molecular weight of 876, which is greater than 340 as required by claim 24. This compound reads on formula (II)
PNG
media_image3.png
112
164
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in claims 22 and 29, wherein n is 0 so that X3 does not exist, X1 and X2 are CR1aR2a and R1a is cyano, and R2a is a substituted C5 heteroaryl, where the substituents are selected from F and ring A is selected from
PNG
media_image4.png
70
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are F; and R3 and R4 are a substituted C6 aryl where the substituent is cyano. X1 is represented by Formula (XXa)
PNG
media_image5.png
124
228
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 32, where Z3 is N and the remaining Z atoms are CY where Y is F.)
Cha includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cha being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known compound from the list of compounds of Chemical Formula 1 as a material in the hole injection layer and another compound from the list of compounds of Chemical Formula 1 as a material in the charge generation layer, wherein the two compounds are different from each other and arrive at the device of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan ([0315]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 21, the claim appears to be a product by process claim. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
As per claim 25, Cha appears silent with respect to the property of a calculated LUMO energy level when calculated as claimed. However, since Cha teaches substantially the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, and teaches that structurally similar compounds Q5 and Q6 have a calculated LUMO value of -5.31 and -5.21, the property of calculated LUMO energy levels is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR20180012193A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 17 – 32 above, and further in view of Ma (US20100237334A1).
As per claim 34, Cha does not teach:
A display device comprising the organic electroluminescent device
Ma teaches OLEDs ([0018]). Ma teaches that displays are predictably suitable applications for OLEDs ([0030]).
Ma teaches an OLED and the OLED can be used in a display device as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the OLED of Cha in the display device of Ma as Ma demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
