DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the phrase “none of a combination(s) of adjacent two or more of R11 to R12 are mutually bonded”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “adjacent two or more of R11 to R12 are not mutually bonded”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-2 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Pan et al (US 2024/0132448).
Regarding claim 1, Pan et al discloses the following compound (Page 28):
PNG
media_image1.png
538
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula (1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Ar100 is a terphenyl, i.e. an unsubstituted C18 aryl;
L1 is a single bond; and
R101 to R108 are hydrogen.
HAr1 corresponds to Formula (E):
PNG
media_image3.png
142
248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where R11 to R18 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 2, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1 is a single bond.
Regarding claim 5, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R101 to R108 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 6, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R101 to R108 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 7, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar100 is an unsubstituted C18 aryl.
Regarding claim 8, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R11 to R21 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 9, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R11 to R21 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 10, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, none of R11 to R21 are mutually bonded.
Regarding claim 11, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an organic electroluminescence device, comprising the disclosed compound (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an organic electroluminescence device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer disposed between the anode and cathode, where the light emitting layer comprises the compound (Abstract, [0129]-[0130], and [0212]).
Regarding claim 13, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer further comprises a fluorescent emitting material ([0089]).
Regarding claim 14, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference does not require a metal complex in light emitting layer, it is clear that the light emitting layer does not comprise a metal complex as recited in the present claim.
Regarding claim 15, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the device comprises a hole transport layer between the anode and the emitting layer ([0212]).
Regarding claim 16, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the device comprises an electron transport layer between the anode and the emitting layer ([0212]).
Regarding claim 17, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, the reference discloses an electronic device as recited in the present claims.
In light of the above, it is clear that Pan et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al (US 2024/0132448).
The discussion with respect to Pan et al as set forth in Paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 3, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The compound disclosed by the reference does not correspond to either Formula (12) or (13) of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
178
310
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
174
288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula (I) ([0025]):
PNG
media_image6.png
196
242
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where L can be ([0058]):
PNG
media_image7.png
70
70
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
and its bonding to Ar1 is exemplified in the following compounds as (Page 20):
PNG
media_image8.png
183
242
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
158
262
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Formulas (12) and (13) of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
168
308
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
174
286
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where R100 is hydrogen.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Pan et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The compound disclosed by the reference does not correspond to either Formula (A) or (B) of the claims:
PNG
media_image12.png
176
512
media_image12.png
Greyscale
However, the compound is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula (I) ([0025]):
PNG
media_image6.png
196
242
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar1 can be (Page 7):
PNG
media_image13.png
130
190
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Formula (B) of the claims:
PNG
media_image14.png
182
236
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights