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 § 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) 1-5, 7-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2018/0233675 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7, Kim et al. teach an opto-electronic device ( organic light-emitting device; see claims 15-20 , abstract and examples) comprising a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an organic layer ( photoactive layer) between the first electrode and the second electrode and an organic compound ( heterocyclic compound ; see abstract, claims and examples) is a compound represented by formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
260
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, more specifically compound represented by formula 6 and formula 7:
PNG
media_image2.png
250
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 1 as instantly claimed. Also, Kim et al. teach the opto-electronic device further comprises a hole transport region between the first electrode and the photoactive layer and an electron transport region between the photoactive layer and the second electrode ( claim 16) as well as a third layer between a first layer ( emission layer) and a second layer ( electron transport region) ( see examples and claim 16). An electronic apparatus comprising the opto-electronic device (example 3 and [0347]).
Regarding claims 8-16 and 18-20, Kim et al. teach an organic compound ( heterocyclic compound ; see abstract, claims and examples) is a compound represented by formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
260
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, more specifically compound represented by formula 6 and formula 7:
PNG
media_image2.png
250
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 1, formula 2a, formula 3-3 and compounds 25 and 28 as instantly claimed. Furthermore, Formula 1 of Kim specifically also teaches L1 may be independently a single bond as recited by claim 15 [0061-0062].
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0233675 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Rosselli et al. (US 2021/0005827 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. do not explicitly recite an electronic apparatus further comprising a thin-film transistor electrically connected to the first electrode; and a color filter, color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, and/or a polarizing layer as instantly claimed. However, it is noted that Kim et al. recognize that electronic apparatus (OLED) further comprises an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode and not overlapping the photoactive layer ( organic layer) ( see [0115 & 0126] may exists in “different layers”). Nonetheless, the examiner has added Rosselli et al. to teach it is well-known to include an “TFT” ( thin-film transistor) connected to a first electrode and a color filter and/ or color conversion layer ( photoelectric conversion layer) to an electronic apparatus ( see abstract, claims, examples and [0008-0010 & 0170-0171] in view of aiding in imaging. Rosselli et al. and Kim et al. are analogous art in electronic apparatus field , more specifically OLED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include in the electronic apparatus of Kim et al. a thin-film transistor as well as a color filter and/or color conversion layer as taught by Rosselli et al. in view of aiding in imaging properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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