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
The title of the instant application contains the word “novel” which is not permitted (See MPEP 606).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is only one figure, therefore the numbering of views is incorrect. According to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u) “Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear." Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arakane et al (US 2008/0193796) (Arakane).
In reference to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 16-17, Arakane teaches a compound H10 as shown below (Arakane [0190]) as a material in an organic EL device of exampled 10 (See table 10) that is used for a display (Araken [0212]).
PNG
media_image1.png
152
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1 wherein m is 1, L is phenylene, Ar is naphthyl and n is 0.
For Claim 2: Reads on arylene of 6 carbon atoms.
For Claim 3: Reads on formula 1 wherein m is 1 and L is structural formula 1.
For Claim 5: Reads on 10 atoms.
For Claim 6: Reads on Structural formula 11.
For Claim 7: Reads on symmetric as claimed.
For Claim 8: Reads on Structural formula 11.
For Claim 10: Reads on hydrogen.
For Claim 11: Reads on chemical formula 5.
For Claim 12: Reads on a device as claimed.
For Claim 13: Reads on each of the layers.
For Claim 16: Reads on formation through a deposition process.
For Claim 17: Reads on use for a display or light.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al (US 2021/0114954) (Yang).
In reference to claims 1-7 and 9-10, Yang teaches a compound as shown below (Yang [0090]).
PNG
media_image2.png
264
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1 wherein m is 1, L is deuterated phenylene, Ar is substituted fluorenyl and n is 0.
For Claim 2: Reads on arylene of 6 carbon atoms.
For Claim 3: Reads on formula 1 wherein m is 1 and L is structural formula 1.
For Claim 4: Reads on Structural formula 3.
For Claim 5: Reads on 13 atoms.
For Claim 6: Reads on Structural formula 12.
For Claim 7: Reads on symmetric as claimed.
For Claim 9: Reads on Structural formula 12.
For Claim 10: Reads on hydrogen.
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.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 2021/0114954) (Yang).
In reference to claims 12-14, Yang teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches it is used as a host material for an emission layer (Yang [0093]) in an organic EL device comprising a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer or hole transport layer, a light emitting alyer an electron injection or transport layer and a cathode (Yang Fig 1.) wherein the emitting layer further comprises a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material (Yang [0093]).
While Yang does not exemplify a device with this material as the host in this exact configuration, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used the material of Yang in the specifically taught application device of Yang with the anticipation of functional device as described therein.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 2021/0114954) (Yang) and further in view of Hatakeyama et al (Adv. Mater., 28: 2777-2781).
In reference to claim 15, Yang teaches the device as described above for claim 14 comprising thermally activated delayed fluorescence emitter. However, Yang does not expressly teach that the emitter is one of the instantly claimed materials.
With respect to the difference, Hatakeyama teaches, in analogous art, materials such as DABNA-1 as shown below that are thermally activated delayed fluorescence materials with small ΔEST, high Φ, and excellent color purity (Hatakeyama p 2780, col 2 para 2).
In light of the motivation of using the materials sucha s DABNA-1 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the emitter materials as described by Hatakeyama in order to have materials with with small ΔEST, high Φ, and excellent color purity and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 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, 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights