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 § 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, 5-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (US 2020/0136063 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses an optoelectronic device (electronic device comprising organic sensor 400, Abstract, fig. 4, [0009], [0213]) comprising:
a first electrode (10, [0193]);
a second electrode (20, [0193]) facing the first electrode (10);
an optical activation layer (organic layer 30, [0193]) arranged between the first electrode (10) and the second electrode (20) (see fig. 2 or 4); and
a first compound represented by Formula 1M ([0165]), which reads on instant claimed formula I.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kwon further discloses each of Z1 and Z2 is S (see [0166] and [0157]), and thus 4th ligand (right ligand) has same electron acceptor structure as in the case of instant application (see [00151]) and thus reads on instant claimed electron acceptor group X.
In the disclosed formula I-M:
Ar2 and Ar3 is c6 carbocyclic group (phenyl group),
Ar4 is C5 heterocyclic group (X2 in Ar4 is O, S, Se or Te, [0054]) with substituted group,
a4 is 1,
each of a1, b1, b2 and b3 is zero, and thus there is no Ar1, T1, T2 and T3,
R11-R14 is hydrogen (see formula 1M).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon further discloses that optical activation layer (30) comprises the first compound ([0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon further discloses that the optical activation layer (30) comprises: a first layer (organic layer 30 comprising the compound) adjacent to the first electrode ([0187-0188]); and a second layer (charge auxiliary layer, [0188]) adjacent to the second electrode ([0188]).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon further discloses that the first layer (30) comprises the first compound ([0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon discloses an electronic apparatus (900) comprising: the optoelectronic device of claim 1 100a; fig. 10) (see rejection of claim 1); a light-emitting device (100d, fig. 10 and [0242], [0194]) configured to not overlap the optoelectronic device (100a), and a color conversion layer (100b or 100c that converts specific color type of wavelength) ([0242] and fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Kwon further discloses that the electronic equipment is a solar cell ([0194]).
Regarding claim 10, Kwon discloses an organic compound represented by Formula 1M ([0165]), which reads on instant claimed formula I.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kwon further discloses each of Z1 and Z2 is S (see [0166] and [0157]), and thus 4th ligand (right ligand) has same electron acceptor structure as in the case of instant application (see [00151]) and thus reads on instant claimed electron acceptor group X.
In the disclosed formula I-M:
Ar2 and Ar3 is c6 carbocyclic group (phenyl group),
Ar4 is C5 heterocyclic group (X2 in Ar4 is O, S, Se or Te, [0054]) with substituted group,
a4 is 1,
each of a1, b1, b2 and b3 is zero, and thus there is no Ar1, T1, T2 and T3,
R11-R14 is hydrogen (see formula 1M).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon further discloses the organic compound is same as instant claim (see rejection of claim 1), and a maximum absorption wavelength of the organic compound must be about 490 nm to about 750 nm. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 13, Kwon further discloses that each of Ar2 and Ar3 being benzene group, and Ar4 being a thiophene group (see annotated figure in which x is sulfur, [0054], and the cyclic group is a substituted thiophene group). There is no Ar1 because a1 is zero.
Regarding claim 14, Kwon further discloses that a4 is zero (see [0018] that discloses n being zero, so a4 is zero).
Regarding claim 15, Kwon further discloses that R11 to R14 is independently hydrogen (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon further discloses that each of b1-b3 is zero, and thus T1-T3 can be anything as claimed (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon further discloses that sum of b1-b3 is zero (see annotated figure).
Regarding claim 18, Kwon further discloses that compound is represented by formula 1-M, which reads on instant claimed formula 1-1 (see rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 19, Kwon further discloses that a group represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
162
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in formula 1 is
PNG
media_image3.png
160
114
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
913
media_image1.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.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gresser et al. (US 2012/0126213 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kwon further discloses an electron transport layer ([0188]). However, Kwon does not disclose the electron transport layer comprises a second compound represented by formula 2-1 to 2-6.
Gresser discloses an electronic device (see fig. 9a) that discloses 1,4,5,8-Naphthalene-tetracarboxylic acid-dianhydride (NTCDA) is well-known electron-transport material ([0112]). NTCDA has a chemical formula of
PNG
media_image4.png
86
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(search for NTCDA formula on Sigmaaldrich.com), which reads on instant claimed formula 2-4
PNG
media_image5.png
168
150
media_image5.png
Greyscale
with Z1 and Z2 being O, and e2 being zero.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the electron transporting NTCDA material as taught by Gresser because selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon as modified by Gresser further discloses that Z1 and Z2 are O, and thus the limitation regarding R1 and R2 is optional.
Regarding claim 4, Kwon as modified by Gresser further discloses second compound is NCDTA which has same formula as N1.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2019/0043926 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Kwon does not disclose in formula I, X is selected from among groups represented by Formulae 1-A, 1-B-1 to 1-B-5, and 1-C-1 to 1-C-6.
Yamada discloses an electronic device (see fig. 9a) comprising a compound having formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
110
222
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the substituent Q is an electron acceptor group and is represented by formula 1-1
PNG
media_image7.png
80
122
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein n is zero ([0012]) and R7 is hydrogen ([0011]) ([0007-0011]). Disclosed formula 1-1 reads on instant claimed formula 1-A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have electron acceptor substituent of Yamada instead of the electron acceptor substituent of Kwon in the formula of Kwon because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious (see MPEP § 2144.06).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon as modified by Yamada the electron acceptor group is represented by formula 1-1
PNG
media_image7.png
80
122
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein n is zero ([0012]) and R7 is hydrogen ([0011]) ([0007-0011]). Thus, the formula simplifies to claimed compound P1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights