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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2022/074122 A2 to Danz et al.
Regarding claim 1, Danz et al. discloses an OLED (claim 14) wherein the EML comprises a TADF triazine derivative exemplified by
PNG
media_image1.png
286
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(p. 113). This compound is representative of the claimed compound and claims 1 and 9 are therefore unpatentable. See MPEP § 2131.02(II). So are claims 2-3 and 11-16. The features of claim 6 are disclosed on page 46. An example that reads on claim 10 is the following compound on page 115:
PNG
media_image2.png
266
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
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.
Claims 4-5, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/074122 A2 to Danz et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the device of claim 1 is disclosed by Danz et al. as explained above. In the prior art device, the feature triazine derivative can be used in the electron transport region or as a host material in the light-emitting layer (p. 45). While such a device is not provided as an example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to make and use it without expecting any difficulty or negativity. Claims 4-5 are therefore unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Claim 8 would have been obvious to a POSITA because Danz et al. discloses numerous electronic apparatuses (p. 52) that typically use a TFT to drive an organic light-emitting element.
Claim 17 is obvious because Danz et al. teaches that the hydrogens on the carbazolyl groups, among others, can be replaced by deuterium atoms (see the descriptions of Ra, Rb, Rc and Rd on page 5, and see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is not an obvious reason for a POSITA to modify the teachings by Danz et al., which represents the closest prior art of record, to arrive at the device of claim 7 or the compounds of claims 18-20.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights