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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 1-9 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.
Instant claim 1 recites “ an organic alloy of a compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 1 and a compound represented by following Chemical Formula 2”. However, the term “an organic alloy” as written in context with the compound of Chemical Formula 1 and/or Chemical Formula 2 is unclear and confusing. It is commonly and ordinarily to understand the meaning of an “alloy” to mean metallic substance composed of two or more elements as either a compound or a solution. See Alloy | Definition, Properties, Examples, & Facts | Britannica pg. 1 (2026). It is therefore unclear what the term “organic alloy” refers to in the present claimed invention. Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suh et al. (KR 10219305 B1; citations from English translation of US 11,588,116 B2).
Regarding claims 1-8, Suh et al. teach ( see abstract, claims 1-10, examples, drawings) comprising: an anode; a cathode; and a light emitting layer comprises an organic alloy of a compound represented by chemical formula 1 ( see the compound of Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
243
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) and a compound represented by chemical formula 2 ( see the compound of Chemical Formula 2 of claim 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
216
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) wherein X1, X2, X3 are each independently CH or N with the proviso that at least one of X1, X2, X3 is N in chemical formula 1 and with the proviso that at least one of R5 and R6 is deuterium (see R’1 and R’2 can each independently be hydrogen or deuterium in Formula 2 in column 130, lines 14-16). The Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 compounds of Suh et al. meets the limitation and chemical structure of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 as instantly claimed. More specifically, Suh et al. teach formula 1-5
PNG
media_image3.png
283
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in columns 173-174 meets the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
169
155
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in claim 5 as well as formula 1-6 and formula 1-4 in claim 2 as instantly claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 2024/0032322 A1).
Regarding claims 1-9 , Ogawa et al. teach ( see abstract, claims, drawings and examples i.e. Example 15, Table 1 in [0127]) comprising an OLED device with an anode, a cathode and a light emitting layer comprising two host materials 2-23:
PNG
media_image5.png
219
291
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and 1-15
PNG
media_image6.png
336
365
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.Host compound 2-23 is identical to Chemical Formula 1 as recited by instant claim 1 and 1-1 recited by instant claim 2 as well as
PNG
media_image7.png
157
162
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 5.
However, Host compound 1-15 [0060] falls under Chemical Formula 2 as recited by instant claims except the compounds does not comprise at least one deuterium as recited by the provisional claim language. Nonetheless, Ogawa et al. recognize that alternative host materials may include deuterium [0052-0056 & 0059] and for example, formula I-38 [0060]
PNG
media_image8.png
348
329
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, which is structurally similar to host material 1-15 but comprises deuterium atoms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Ex. 15 of Ogawa et al. to include formula 1-38 in view of formula I-15 in view of routine experimentation and it is well-known and commonly known in the art that using deuterated compounds leads to an increase in lifetime of OLED device [0019, 0042 & 0127-0128].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (KR 10219305 B1; citations from English translation of US 11,588,116 B2) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Suh et al. do not explicitly show the compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 is one selected from the following Chemical Formulas 2-1-1 to 2-1-76 as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, Suh et al. teach chemical formula 2 can be more specifically represented by formula 2-2 in column 193:
PNG
media_image9.png
374
345
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, which are similar in chemical structure as formula 2-1-27:
PNG
media_image10.png
217
210
media_image10.png
Greyscale
minus the deuterium substituents. However, Suh et al. recognize that R’1 and R’2 can each independently be hydrogen or deuterium in Formula 2 in column 130, lines 14-16. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the chemical formula 2-2 of Suh et al. to substituted the hydrogen atoms for the deuterium as instantly claimed in view of routine experimentation.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Park et al. (KR 10-2022-0009351 A1; citations from English Translation of EP 4163988 A1).
Park et al. ( see abstract, claims, example 17, Table 1 on page 255) teach an OLED ( organic light emitting device) comprising an anode; a cathode; and a light emitting layer between the anode and the cathode [0031-0034], wherein the light emitting layer comprising two host materials 3-14 and 2-10. Compounds 3-14
PNG
media_image11.png
201
205
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[0205] and 2-10
PNG
media_image12.png
292
220
media_image12.png
Greyscale
[0158-0160] are identical compounds listed for chemical formula 1 and chemical formula 2 as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights