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)..
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “Embodiments provide” should be deleted. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. 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 § 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(s) 1, 3-10, and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-10 and 13, Geum et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples and figures) teach a light emitting element ( organic light emitting device; claim 10) comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode disposed on the first electrode; and an emission layer ( light emitting layer; claim 13) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emitting layer comprises a first compound represented by formula 1 [0012]:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; and at least one of a second represented by Formula HT , or a third compound represented by Formula ET ( see HT-A in Example 1 and [0394]:
PNG
media_image2.png
234
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of Formula HT as instantly claimed.
Although Formula 1 of Geum et al. do not explicitly recite an exemplary embedment shown Rx1 is a group represented by one of Formula 2-1 to 2-4 as instantly claimed, Geum et al. recognize that formula 1 of Geum et al. is more specifically formula 1-1-3 [0130]:
PNG
media_image3.png
256
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein one of Z5 and Z6 is N, and the other is N or CH, Z7 to Z12 are the same as or different from each other, and are each independently CH or N [0133] and R21 to R24 are the same as or different from each other and are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group ( i.e., t-butyl; [0134]) meeting the limitation of one of Formula 2-1 to 2-4 as instantly claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Formula 1-1-3 of Geum et al. can include a group represented by one of Formula 2-1 to 2-4 as instantly claimed in view of routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 14-24, Geum et al. , Geum et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples and figures) teach a compound represented by formula 1 [0012]:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Although Formula 1 of Geum et al. do not explicitly recite an exemplary embedment shown Rx1 is a group represented by one of Formula 2-1 to 2-4 as instantly claimed, Geum et al. recognize that formula 1 of Geum et al. is more specifically formula 1-1-3 [0130]:
PNG
media_image3.png
256
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein one of Z5 and Z6 is N, and the other is N or CH, Z7 to Z12 are the same as or different from each other, and are each independently CH or N [0133] and R21 to R24 are the same as or different from each other and are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group ( i.e., t-butyl; [0134]) meeting the limitation of one of Formula 2-1 to 2-4 as instantly claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Formula 1-1-3 of Geum et al. can include a group represented by one of Formula 2-1 to 2-4 as instantly claimed in view of routine experimentation.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Hayano (US 12,133,454 B2; see abstract, claims and examples) teaches a polycyclic compound as instantly claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11 and 12 are 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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