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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
In chemical patent abstracts for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as its use, e.g., “The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas, useful as oral anti-diabetics.” Exemplification of a species could be illustrative of members of the class. For processes, the type of reaction, reagents and process conditions should be stated, generally illustrated by a single example unless variations are necessary.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is missing the chemical formula 1, or a description thereof. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The four modes of bonding in claim 2 are the only four that are already present in claim 1. Claim 2 does nothing more than presenting the compound in a different format; it does not change the compound in any way. Claim 3 has a similar issue. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113501823 A to Ma et al. (See attached machine-generated English-language translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ma et al. discloses a composition comprising two host materials, and an OLED comprising the same in the EML, wherein the two host materials have general structural representations of
PNG
media_image1.png
198
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
For example, the device in example number 9 (p. 89 of the original document) comprises compounds A1 and 4 in a 1-to-1 weight ratio,
PNG
media_image2.png
228
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
188
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Compound A1 is representative of the claimed compound wherein one R15 is a C6 aryl group. Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable. See MPEP § 2131.02(II). Claims 2-3 fail to further limit claim 1 and they are unpatentable for the same reasons. Claims 4-5 are anticipated as explained. Compound A1 is identical to compound 1-4 of claim 6. Compound 4 is representative of the compound of formula 10 in claim 10. Consequently, claims 7-13 and 15-16 are anticipated. The features of claim 14 can be found in the same example.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-102054806-B1 (= US 2022/0006022 A1) to Suh et al. in view of CN-112939985-A (= US 2023/0200234 A1) to Hu et al.
Regarding claim 1, Suh et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises, as the host materials, a composition containing the following two compounds:
PNG
media_image4.png
264
312
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
274
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
The second compound is essentially identical to the compound of formula 10 being claimed in claims 10, 13 and 15 (pp. 61+). The first compound, which is at least partially deuterated, has a scope that includes the following examples
PNG
media_image6.png
380
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
388
384
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image8.png
412
386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Suh et al. fails to teach the compound of claim 1. However, Hu et al. discloses a compound to be used as a host material in the light-emitting layer of an OLED wherein the compound has formula A, B, D or F:
PNG
media_image9.png
330
470
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
308
458
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image11.png
324
462
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image12.png
300
468
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
wherein Ar is a (hetero)aryl group. The compound is essentially a subset of the claimed compound (pp. 19+). The compound, when used as a host material in the EML of an OLED, provides higher EQE and service lifetime than those compounds wherein (1) the Het(Ar1)(Ar2) group is an aryl group, (2) the Ar group is H, or (3) the indolocarbazole has a different fusion mode, as seen in the following comparative examples (pp. 84-86):
PNG
media_image13.png
412
364
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
374
396
media_image14.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image15.png
358
546
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the device disclosed by Suh et al. by replacing the first host compound with one having the requirements set forth by Hu et al., such as
PNG
media_image16.png
328
546
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
so as to improve further the external quantum yield and the operation lifetime of the device. Claim 1 is accordingly unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Claims 2-5 and 7-16 are also unpatentable as explained.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733.
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.
/VU A NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights