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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least a chemical structure formula of formula and formula 2 should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 on line 3 the period should be replaced with a colon;
in claim 1 at the end of page 1 and middle of page 2 of the claims dated 08/01/2023, "Provided" should read "[[P]]provided" for ease of reading;
in claim 2, in the middle of page 5 of the claims dated 08/01/2023, "Wherein" should read "[[W]]wherein" for ease of reading; and
in claim 8, on line 2 of page 19 of the claims dated 08/01/2023, "Wherein" should read "[[W]]wherein" for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, in each of the claims, the variable R10 is defined twice, once as it related to formula 2/2' and once as it related to the definition of X1 to X3 in the fragment
PNG
media_image1.png
113
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 8 each recites the broad recitation of the definition of R10, and the claim also recites the narrower definition of R10. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the variable R10 will in all instances be interpreted as the broader of the two definitions.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 8.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites definition for Lc, Are, and Arf ; however, these variables do not appear to be found in the chemical structure formulae of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the variables Lc, Are, and Arf may be met.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the definitions of variables Lc, Are, and Arf are not present.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. KR-20210065853-A (hereinafter "Choi-KR", see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Choi-MT").
It is noted that Choi et al. KR-20210065853-A cited on the IDS of 08/01/2023.
Regarding claims 8-9, Choi discloses an organic light emitting device including a compound represented by a formula (1) (Choi-MT, page 6 of 15, lines 7-8) and discloses specific examples of the compound represented by the formula (1) on pages 14-15 (Choi-KR) which meet the claimed formula 2', including for example,
PNG
media_image2.png
204
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Choi-KR, page 14).
For example, the compound
PNG
media_image2.png
204
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
meets the claimed formula 2' wherein:
X is O;
Ra, Rb, and Rc are not required to be present;
R1 to R3 are each hydrogen, R4 is
PNG
media_image3.png
115
198
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and R5 to R12 are each hydrogen;
L4 is a single bond;
X1 to X3 are each N;
R10 in the fragment
PNG
media_image3.png
115
198
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is not required to be present;
Ar4 and Ar5 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group); and
a is 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. WO-2020045976-A1 (see English language equivalent US-20210359216-A1 referred to herein as "Kim") in view of Choi et al. KR-20210065853-A (hereinafter "Choi-KR", see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Choi-MT").
It is noted that Choi et al. KR-20210065853-A cited on the IDS of 08/01/2023.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-9, Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising at least one light-emitting layer between an anode and a cathode, in which the light-emitting layer comprises a plurality of host materials comprising a first host material comprising a compound represented by a formula 1, and a second host material comprising a compound represented by a formula 2 (¶ [0069]-[0070]). Kim teaches that by comprising the plurality of host materials, an organic electroluminescent device having higher luminous efficiency and/or improved lifespan characteristics compared to conventional organic electroluminescent devices can be provided, and a display device or a lighting device using the organic electroluminescent device can be manufactured (¶ [0026]). Kim teaches specific examples of the first host material comprising a compound represented by a formula 1 in paragraph [0061] including, for example, compound H-182
PNG
media_image4.png
325
363
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 39), which meets the claimed formula 1 and corresponds to one of the compounds in claim 5.
Kim does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the second host material comprising a compound represented by a formula 2 is a compound that meets the claimed formula 2. However, Kim teaches examples of the second host material comprising a compound represented by a formula 2 comprising a triazine substituted with one or more dibenzofuran derivative groups.
Choi teaches an organic light emitting device including a light emitting layer comprising a compound represented by a formula (1) (Choi-MT, page 6 of 15, lines 7-8) as a host material (Choi-MT, page 6 of 15, lines 19-21). Choi teaches the compound of Choi's formula (1) can be used as a light emitting layer material in an organic light emitting device to exhibit high efficiency, low driving voltage, and long lifespan (Choi-MT, page 13 of 13, lines 11-13). Choi teaches specific examples of the compound represented by the formula (1) on pages 14-15 (Choi-KR) which comprise a triazine substituted with one or more dibenzofuran derivative group. The compounds of Choi all fall within the scope of Kim's formula 2 and which meet the claimed formula 2', including for example,
PNG
media_image2.png
204
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Choi-KR, page 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kim by forming the second host material out of the compound of formula (1), as taught by Choi. One would have been motivated to do so because Kim teaches the second host material comprising a compound represented by a formula 2 and examples comprising a triazine substituted with one or more dibenzofuran derivative groups and Choi teaches a host compound that meets Kim's formula 2 and comprises a triazine substituted with one or more dibenzofuran derivative groups. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Choi teaches the compound of Choi's formula (1) can be used as a light emitting layer material in an organic light emitting device to exhibit high efficiency, low driving voltage, and long lifespan and therefore forming the second host material in the device of Kim out of Choi's compound would yield the benefits of high efficiency, low driving voltage, and long lifespan, as described above.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Choi teaches the modified deice as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Choi does not specifically teach a device wherein the second host material comprising one of the compounds listed in claim 6. However, several of the compounds of Choi discussed above are positional isomers of the specific compounds listed in claim 6.
Given the general formula and teachings of Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomers of the exemplified compounds such that the triazinyl substituent is substituted at a position corresponding to one of the claimed R6, R7, R9, R10, R11, or R12. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by formula (1) of Choi in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host in the emitting layer of the device of Kim in view of Choi and possess the properties taught by Kim and Choi. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP § 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP § 2144.09 II.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wang et al. CN-113528122-A discloses compounds including
PNG
media_image5.png
205
139
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 75); Kim et al. WO-2024014934-A1 discloses compounds on page 35, for example
PNG
media_image6.png
112
170
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights