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 Korea on January 29, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on July 28, 2023.
Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 28, 2023 and November 11, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because under CFR 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because in accordance with the drawing objection presented above, all mentions to FIG. 1 should be deleted and instead replaced with the words “the
FIGURE.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 103
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.
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 1 – 5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim (KR20130124775A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10, Kim teaches:
An organic electroluminescent device, comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer formed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic electroluminescent material has a host, wherein the host is one or more compounds represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
284
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(In Example 9, as shown in Table 2, a device is provided with the structure as described in [0318 – 0322] of substrate/anode/HIL/HTL/EML/ETL/EIL/cathode.” The emission layer contains Mat-22
PNG
media_image2.png
142
140
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein A is selected from an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms; L1 and L2 are each a single bond; n1 is 1; R is hydrogen; n is 9; R2 is a substituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms, wherein the substituents are deuterium as required by claim 7. This compound has a molecular weight of 533 as required by claim 5.)
Wherein the composition further comprises at least one dopant (As described in [0322], compound C-545T is provided as a dopant.)
Regarding the limitations “wherein the organic material layer is formed using a composition having an organic electroluminescent material and a solvent,” “wherein the solvent includes at least one of a chlorine-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, an aromatic solvent, an aliphatic solvent, a ketone-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, and alcohol-based solvent, an amide-based solvent, and a benzoate-based solvent,” and “wherein the organic material layer is formed by any one of spin coating, dip coating, doctor blade coating, spray coating, roll coating, inkjet printing, and screen printing” in claims 1, 3 and 10, Examiner notes that the limitations are product by process limitations. While the Example of Kim is formed using vaccumm deposition ([0322]), 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 4, Kim is silent with respect to the solubility of Mat-22. However, because Kim teaches substantially the same structure as claimed by Applicant, and because the claim does not require a solubility in any specific solvent, the property of solubility in solvent 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 2 (US20180130951A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8, Kim 2 teaches:
An organic electroluminescent device, comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer formed between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0022]: “Another aspect provides a method of manufacturing an organic light-emitting device, the method including forming an organic layer that is disposed between a first electrode and a second electrode and includes an emission layer, wherein the forming of the organic layer includes performing a solution process using the ink composition.”)
Wherein the organic material layer is formed using a composition having an organic electroluminescent material and a solvent (Abstract: “The ink composition contains a compound represented by Formula 1, an amine-based compound, and a polar solvent:
PNG
media_image3.png
172
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.”)
Wherein the organic electroluminescent material has a host, wherein the host is one or more compounds represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
284
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(In [0053], Kim teaches that the compound represented by Formula 1 may be selected from compound 20
PNG
media_image4.png
236
326
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Compound 20 reads on the claimed Formula wherein A is selected from an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms; L1 and L2 are each a single bond; n1 is 1; R is hydrogen; n is 9; R2 and R6 are both an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms, as required by claim 6. This compound has a molecular weight of 566 as required by claim 5 and is the same as compound 49 in claim 8
PNG
media_image5.png
172
218
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.)
Kim 2 does not teach a specific device formed from Compound 20, but Kim 2 teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Kim 2 as Kim 2. demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 3, Kim 2 teaches:
Wherein the solvent includes at least one of … a benzoate-based solvent ([0108]: “In one embodiment, the polar solvent may be selected from a methyl benzoate, an ethyl benzoate, an n-propyl benzoate, an iso-propyl benzoate, and a t-butyl benzoate.”)
As per claim 4, Kim 2 teaches:
Wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 has a solubility in the solvent of 0.1 wt% to 50 wt% ([0109]: “In one embodiment, a solubility of the compound represented by Formula 1 in the polar solvent may be in a range of about 1% to about 10%.”)
As per claim 7, another representative compound taught by Kim 2 is Compound 19
PNG
media_image6.png
208
302
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which contains the claimed deuterium.
As per claim 9, Kim 2 teaches:
Wherein the composition further comprises at least one dopant ([0116]: “In one embodiment, the emission layer includes a host and a dopant, the host may include a compound represented by Formula 1, and the dopant may include a compound represented by Formula 2.”)
As per claim 10, Kim 2 teaches:
Wherein the organic material layer is formed by any one of spin coating, dip coating, doctor blade coating, spray coating, roll coating, inkjet printing, and screen printing ([0121]: “In one embodiment, the solution process may be spin coating, slot coating, dip coating, bar coating, roll coating, gravure coating, micro gravure coating, wire coating, spray coating, ink-jet printing, nozzle printing, screen printing, flexo printing, offset printing, or casting.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20170342318A1, US20220384733A1, US20220093868A1, and US20170117478A1 all teach compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
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
Prosecution Insights