DETAILED ACTION
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 formulae (1) and (2), 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 Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 4, “Oxideoxide” should be corrected to “oxide” and, in claim 5, the word "boned" is extraneous and should be deleted.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/124827 A1 (= US 11,271,176 B2) to Luo.
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses the following compound
PNG
media_image1.png
346
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is representative of the claimed compound (see compound (1e) in claim 3 wherein Xa is NR9 where R9 is an aromatic group, and the compound has 3 cross-linkable groups). Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 2-4 and 6.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113135945 A to Li et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. discloses a cross-linkable boron compound, a formulation comprising the same in an organic solvent (e.g., solution deposition), a film made therefrom, and an OLED comprising the same, wherein the compound is exemplified by
PNG
media_image2.png
154
214
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image3.png
174
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
These compounds are representative of the claimed compound where the cross-linkable group is cyclobutanyl and acrylic. Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are therefore anticipated.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113135945 A to Li et al.
Regarding claim 13, the formulation of claim 7 is disclosed by Li et al. as explained above. The reference fails to disclose the organic solvent used in the spin-coating deposition of the EML of the OLED (see [0160]). However, in view of the fact that the boron compounds are highly soluble in toluene and hexane (page 51 of translation), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to employ a good solvent such as toluene or hexane for the spin-coating process.
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. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights