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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
In claim 9, each of structures III-1 to III-4 has R groups with an index k or l, both of which are undefined.
For the purpose of applying prior art, it is presumed that k or l refers to the number of available substitution sites.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7, 9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 2022-0082962 A (“Lee”).
A partial machine translation is enclosed.
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a polymer compound
PNG
media_image1.png
295
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(p. 29). This structure contains at least one structural unit of formula (2), where Ar1 and Ar2 are substituted aromatic hydrocarbon groups of 13 carbon atoms, Ar4 is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms, Ar2 is unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon having 6 carbon atoms, Ar5 is a single bond, Ar6 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms, all R1 and R2 are hydrogen. This structure includes a structure of formula (3) where Ar8 and Ar9 are each unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon groups, Ar10 is a single bond, and each R4 is hydrogen.
As to claim 7, the structure 35 shown above has Ar3 has structure I-1 where each R111 is hydrogen.
As to claim 9, the structure 35 above has Ar6 structure III-1, where one R311 is branched hydrocarbon having four atoms, and the remainder of R311 are hydrogen.
As to claim 11, Lee teaches forming an organic layer for electroluminescent device using the compound as a hole transport layer, in combination with an electron transport material (translation, p. 10).
As to claims 12 and 13, Lee teaches a composition including an electron transport material. The luminescent material is optional under claim 11.
As to claim 14, Lee exemplifies the compound as a hole transport layer (film) (example 1 to 12, translation p. 39).
As to claim 15, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device having a first and second electrode with multiple organic layers between, where the compound comprises a layer (examples 1 to 12, translation p. 39).
As to claim 16, the compound 35 is applied as a hole transport layer (examples 1-12, translation, p. 39).
As to claim 17, Lee teaches an additional light emitting layer (p. 10), including a dopant, including organic metal complex (translation, pp. 11-12).
As to claim 18, Lee exemplifies spin coating a solution of the compound in solvent onto a hole injection layer, and baking, thus removing solvent (examples 1-12, translation, p.39).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2022-0082962 A (“Lee”).
The discussion of Lee with respect to claim 1 is incorporated by reference.
As to claim 4, Lee exemplifies a structural unit represented by formula (3), but does not exemplify Ar8 or Ar9 having an alkyl group as recited.
However, the broader teaching of Lee includes the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
209
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p. 3), which meets formula (1), and teaches that the Ar1-Ar4 group in this formula may be
PNG
media_image3.png
127
156
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(p. 3), where R31 may be benzocyclobutene (p. 4), and R30-R32 may be alkyl as recited (translation, p. 6), and as such, alkyl substitution on this structural unit having benzocyclobutene is an obvious modification suggested by Lee.
As to claim 5, Lee does not exemplify the structure (6). However, the structure includes Ar8 and Ar9 being unsubstituted C6 aromatic, Ar10 being a single bond, R4 being hydrogen. Lee further teaches more broadly that other Ar1-Ar4 units may be incorporated, including substituted aromatic units (p. 3, showing numerous aromatic backbone units, where such units incorporated would meet Ar9’ being a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic unit, and E being a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 to 60 carbon atoms (the substitution in this case being the remainder of the polymer). As such, the structure of claim 6 is obvious as being taught by the structural units of Lee.
As to claim 6, the structure of formula (7) is not exemplified. However, the structure (35) of Lee includes Ar15, Ar16 being a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic group having 13 carbon atoms, Ar17 is unsubstituted C6 aromatic group, Ar18 is a single bond, R6 and R7 are all hydrogen, Ar18 is a substituted C6 aromatic group. The general structure (1) of Lee includes Ar1 to Ar4, which includes many C6-C30 aromatic structures (pp. 3-4), with substituents that include benzocyclobutene group (p. 4). As such, the use of structural groups having Ar7 linked to a benzocyclobutene group as shown is an obvious modification suggested by Lee.
As to claim 8, Lee does not exemplify Ar1, Ar2, and Ar4 as recited. However, the general structure (I) of Lee has Ar1 and Ar2 being a structure of recited structure II-5’, where all R218’ and R219’ being hydrogen, and R1 to R4 include alkyl groups of the recited type (translation, pp. 5-6), and exemplifies units having those recited substituents (pp. 5-6). Lee includes numerous aromatic structures as the backbone unit Ar1-Ar4 including
PNG
media_image4.png
95
173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(p. 3), where R14 and R15 may be hydrogen or alkyl, including within the C1-C18 range. As such, the recited structure is an obvious modification within the teaching of Lee.
As to claim 10, Lee does not exemplify the recited Ar4. However, the general structure (I) of Lee includes numerous aromatic structures as the backbone unit Ar1-Ar4 including
PNG
media_image4.png
95
173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(p. 3), where R14 and R15 may be hydrogen or alkyl, including within the C1-C30 range. As such, the recited structure having alkyl substituents is an obvious modification within the teaching of Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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: while Lee teaches polymers having benzocyclobutene structures, Lee does not provide rationale to arrive at a structure of formula (2) as recited in claim 2, or the specific benzocyclobutene containing pendant group recited by claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights