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 delete the language “Embodiments provide”. 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 Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: The language “the condensed cyclic compound” should be amended to recite “ the at least one condensed cyclic compound” in view of claim consistency language. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2021/020928 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, Geum et al. ( see abstract, claims, example and drawings) teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode ( anode 2) ; a second electrode ( cathode 4) facing the first electrode ( anode 2) ; an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer 3 ( see Figure 2) ; and at least one cyclic compound represented by any one of the following formulas:
PNG
media_image1.png
115
57
media_image1.png
Greyscale
( wherein X1=N(E11), E11=*1-(L11)n11-R11, n11= ), R11= a C1-C60 alkyl group that is unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a , X2= N(E21), R21 is a group represented by formula (2), Y1= B, A11, A12, and A21= C5-C30 carbocyclic group, d3 = 0, , d5 = 1, d= 1 and the polycyclic compound selected from the d8= 0), the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region ( hole transport layer 7 and/or hole injection layer 5) and electron transport region ( electron transport layer 10), wherein the emission layer comprises the condensed cyclic compound in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 49.99 parts by weight (0.1 to 10%; [0751-0818]).
However, the differences between compound of formula 1 of the present application and the compounds in claim 8 of Geum et al. are configurations of the chemical compounds, for [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]example
PNG
media_image1.png
115
57
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of Geum et al. and
PNG
media_image2.png
164
163
media_image2.png
Greyscale
compound 58 or compound 47 of the present application. One of ordinary skilled in the art can easily understand that compounds may be stereoisomers of each other due to plethora of substituents to choose from by the claimed invention. In reMay, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, a person in ordinary skilled in the OLED art may easily adjust and optimize the substitutent of general formula of Geum et al. to disclose the same lead compound as recited by chemical formula (I) in view routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235; 220 F2d 454 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claims 13-20, Geum et al. teach cyclic compounds represented by any one of the following formulas:
PNG
media_image1.png
115
57
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
103
130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(wherein X1=N(E11), E11=*1-(L11)n11-R11, n11= ), R11= a C1-C60 alkyl group that is unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a , X2= N(E21), R21 is a group represented by formula (2), Y1= B, A11, A12, and A21= C5-C30 carbocyclic group, d3 = 0, , d5 = 1, d= 1 and the polycyclic compound selected from the d8= 0).
However, the differences between compound of formula 1 of the present application and the compounds in claim 8 of Geum et al. are configurations of the chemical compounds, for [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]example
PNG
media_image1.png
115
57
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of Geum et al. and
PNG
media_image2.png
164
163
media_image2.png
Greyscale
compound 58 or compound 47 of the present application. One of ordinary skilled in the art can easily understand that compounds may be stereoisomers of each other due to plethora of substituents to choose from by the claimed invention. In reMay, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, a person in ordinary skilled in the OLED art may easily adjust and optimize the substitutent of general formula of Geum et al. to disclose the same lead compound as recited by chemical formula (I) as well as formula [1-1] to formula [1-3]in view routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235; 220 F2d 454 (CCPA 1955)
Claim(s) 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2021/020928 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maruyama et al. (KR 10-2022-0047017 A; citations from US corresponding US 2023-0069900 A1).
Regarding claims 5-7, Geum et al. do not explicitly recite the emission layer further comprises a first compound , second compound and third compound as instantly claimed or emitting light having a maximum wavelength in a range of about 400 nm to about 500 nm as instantly claimed. However, the examiner has added Maruyama et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the organic light-emitting device art to include a first compound that is a hole transport compound ( claims 4 and 5) comprising at least one electron donating group , a second compound that is an electron transport compound ( claim 4) comprising a least one electron withdrawing group, and a third compound that is a metal-containing compound (host compound, first and second dopant compound in which the first dopant includes an organometallic compound ( claim 8) ; see abstract, claims i.e. claim 8, and examples) and the light emitting layer have maximum emission wavelength of 450 nm to 500 nm range ( claim 18 and [0372]). Geum et al. and Maruyama et al. are analogous art in the OLED field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the emission layer of Geum et al. to include a first compound , second compound and third compound that is a metallic compound and having a maximum wavelength in a range of about 400 nm to about 500 nm as taught by Maruyama et al. in view of aiding in providing a light emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency and long lifespan.
Regarding claims 8-12, Geum et al. do not explicitly recite light emitting device comprised in an electronic apparatus. However, Geum et al. recognize that that it is commonly known that light emitting device is used in semiconductor device that forms an interface with the electrodes ( electronic devices; see background art). Nonetheless, the examiner has added Maruyama et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the organic light-emitting device art to include the device comprised in an electronic apparatus ( claim 20, examples and [0024 and 0229, 0429-0430] that comprises a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode and a drain electrode that is electrically connected to at least one of the electrodes and further comprising a color filter , a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or a combination thereof. Murayama et al. teach the device may be any of the following a display and lighting device, a biomarker, a biosensor, and a diagnostic kit [0430]. It is noted that the electronic devices disclosed by Maruyama et al. that includes display comes under the item of technology in which it is obvious to the person of ordinary skilled in the art to recognize that the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected with the source electrode or drain electrode of the thin film transistor. Geum et al. and Maruyama et al. are analogous art in the OLED field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the light emitting device of Geum et al. to include a in an electronic apparatus as taught by Murayama et al. that comprises a thin film transistor comprising a source electrode and a drain electrode that is electrically connected to at least one of the electrodes.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Geum et al. (US 2021/0391547 A1) teach an organic light emitting device comprising a cyclic compound represented by chemical formula 1 ( see abstract, claims and examples).
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