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 .
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 1-20 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 1-2, 11, and 12, the HOMO values are indefinite as it is unclear what method is used to the calculate the HOMO of the compounds. It is well known in the art that the method used to calculate the HOMO can have a significant effect on the HOMO value. Depending on the method used could affect what compounds meet the applicant’s claimed HOMO limitations. Given that the method used can have an effect of the HOMO value it is unclear what compounds meet the applicant’s claimed HOMO limitations.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 18, chemical formula I is indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot fully envisaged the entire scope of the applicant’s claimed invention. The applicant claims that the R groups can be substituted or unsubstituted groups such as aryl or heteroaryl, but does not define what the substituted groups on the R groups can be and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot envisage all the groups that can cover groups that could be the substituents.
Claims 3-9, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claims 1-3, 10-12, and 18.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 2015, 27, 240-244) (hereafter “Liu”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, and 9, Liu teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a blue emitting layer, a red emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (page 241 Fig. 1) (claims 1, 8, and 9). Liu teaches that the blue host material is MADN (claims 3 and 4). Fig. 1 of Liu shows that the device meets that applicant’s claimed HOMO imitations (claims 1 and 2).
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(s) 5, 6, 10-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 2015, 27, 240-244) (hereafter “Liu”) as applied to claims 1-4, 8, 9, and 18 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (WO 2012/036482) (hereafter “Shin”).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 10-14, and 16-20, Liu does not teach where the red host material meets applicant’s formula 3.
Shin teaches a red emitting electroluminescent device, comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
176
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
174
133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image3.png
162
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as a few examples as the host material for a red phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs [61]-[97] and [217]-[236]) (claims 5, 6, 10-14, 16-20). Shin teaches that when these host materials are used for red phosphorescent dopants the device has improved electroluminescent properties (paragraph [240]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify of the device of Liu so the red host material was
PNG
media_image1.png
176
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
174
133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image3.png
162
155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as taught by Shin. The motivation would have been to improve the electroluminescent properties of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2015/0034923) teaches an electroluminescent device comprising multiple charge generation layers and multiple emission parts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
