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 .
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)(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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0131083 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a compound H2-118 that reads on Chemical Formula 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
611
1209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Chemical Formula 1
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
Ar2 is an unsubstituted phenyl
L is an unsubstituted naphthalenediyl
n1 and n2 are 0
Regarding claim 2, Lee further teaches wherein the Chemical Formula 1 is Chemical Formula 1-4,
PNG
media_image2.png
592
1210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Chemical Formula 1-4 Ar1, Ar2, L, n1, and n2 are as defined in claim 1 (see claim 1 Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further teaches wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl (as defined for claim 1 in Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches wherein Ar1 is the first structure in the group disclosed in claim 4 of instant application,
PNG
media_image3.png
636
1211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lee further teaches wherein Ar2 is an unsubstituted phenyl (as defined for claim 1 in Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further teaches wherein L is an unsubstituted naphthalenediyl (as defined for claim 1 in Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches wherein L is the fourth structure in the second line of the group disclosed in claim 7 of instant application,
PNG
media_image4.png
636
1211
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lee further teaches wherein compound H2-118 that reads on Chemical Formula 1 is the third compound of the first line in page 10 of the claim set provided for claim 8 of instant application,
PNG
media_image5.png
642
1208
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0131083 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 above.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches an organic light emitting device (Device Example 1, Table 1, para. [0224]), comprising: a first electrode (ITO anode, para. [0224]); a second electrode (Al cathode, para. [0224]) that is opposite the first electrode; and organic material layers (hole injection layer, first and second hole transport layer, light-emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer, para. [0224]) that are between the first electrode and the second electrode,
In Example 1, Lee fails to teach wherein the compound in the organic material layers comprises the compound of claim 1.
However, Lee teaches that the compound in the light-emitting layer of Example 1 is compound H2-11 that corresponds to formula 2 of Lee (para. [0051] and [0062]). Lee teaches that compound H2-118 (that reads on claim 1 as defined above in Paragraph 5), is also a compound of formula 2 suitable as a host for the light-emitting layer (para. [0052] and [0062]).
PNG
media_image6.png
403
1211
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute compound H2-11 with compound H2-118, because Lee teaches compound H2-118 may suitably be selected as the host represented by formula 1. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that compound H2-11 would be useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of L22 and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to specifically select compound H2-118, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable compounds represented by formula 2 and taught by Lee, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Lee’s formula 2 having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee further teaches wherein one of the organic layers is a light emitting layer (para. [0224]).
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (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.
/APCV/
Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights