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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202210394816.1 filed in People's Republic of China on April 15, 2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202210527743.9 filed in People's Republic of China on May 16, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Abstract
The abstract is objected to by the examiner because it refers to “(Fig. 1)”, however, “(Fig. 1)” is not present in the abstract page.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the labels of Fig. 1 are low resolution and is hard to discern or determine the labels. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 3-13, and 15-16 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 claim 1, the claim recites “Ar4 is selected from the group consisting of substituted or unsubstituted aryl having 6 to 40 carbon atoms, and substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 40 carbon atoms, or Ar4 is single bond”. However, the Formula does not show L-A directly attached to Ar4. It is unclear how Ar4 could be a single bond if L-A is attached somewhere else on the structure. Fur purpose of examination and searching, examiner interprets Ar4 as either a substituted or unsubstituted aryl having 6 to 40 carbon atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 40 carbon atoms, or a single bond to L-A.
Regarding claims 3-13 and 15-16, the claims are indefinite. Claim 1 recites “Ar4 is selected from the group consisting of substituted or unsubstituted aryl having 6 to 40 carbon atoms, and substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 40 carbon atoms, or Ar4 is single bond” which renders the claim indefinite as described above in paragraph 16. Claim 3-13 and 15-16 are dependent on claim 1 and fail to overcome, clarify or remedy the limitations regarding Ar4 of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham et al. (KR1020150124924) in view of Fuchiwaki et al. (US 2018/0205019 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ham teaches a nitrogen-containing compound
PNG
media_image1.png
556
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
385
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
that reads on the claimed Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
377
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Formula 1:
L is a single bond
A is Formula a-2
PNG
media_image4.png
377
377
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Het is a nitrogen-containing heteroarylene having 3 carbon atoms
L1 and L2 are each independently a single bond
Ar1 and Ar2 are identical and are each independently an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms
Ar4 is an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms
n1 to n3 are 0
Ham’s compound
PNG
media_image1.png
556
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
differs from the claimed Formula 1 wherein X is O or S.
Fuchiwaki teaches a nitrogen-containing fuse heterocyclic compound of Formula 1
PNG
media_image5.png
356
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(abstract) used for an organic electroluminescence device with high efficiency (para. 0177). Fuchiwaki teaches in Formula 1 that X may be O, S, CRwRx (para. 0007).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Fuchiwaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the CMe2 group of Ham with S because Fuchiwaki teaches they are suitable substituents for one another in a condensed compound of an OLED. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a heterocyclic nitrogen-containing compound in the OLED of Ham and possess the benefits of high efficiency taught by Fuchiwaki. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the CMe2 group of Ham with S because Fuchiwaki teaches they are suitable substituents for one another in a condensed compound of an OLED, because it would have been choosing S over CRwRx, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the heterocyclic nitrogen-containing compound in the OLED device of Ham and possessing the benefits taught by Fuchiwaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds comprising an S atom having the benefits taught by Fuchiwaki in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
PNG
media_image6.png
448
1101
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified compound of Ham reads on Formula 1 of instant application wherein X is S.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ham further teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing compound shown in Formula 1 is structure 1-3.
PNG
media_image7.png
540
1099
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Ham further teaches wherein Het is a triazinylene.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 does not require A to be Formula a-1 containing HAr, thus the limitations wherein HAr is defined as different substituted or unsubstituted groups is not required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 does not require A to be Formula a-1 containing HAr, thus the limitations wherein HAr is selected from a substituted or unsubstituted group W is not required.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ham further teaches wherein Ar1, Ar2, and Ar4 are each independently an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ham further teaches wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are each independently an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 does not require A to be Formula a-1 containing Ar3, thus the limitations wherein Ar3 is defined as different substituted or unsubstituted groups is not required.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ham further teaches wherein Ar4 is an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ham further teaches wherein L, L1 and L2 are a single bond. Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 does not require A to be Formula a-1 containing L3, thus the limitations wherein L3 is defined as a single bond or different substituted or unsubstituted groups is not required.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 does not require n1 to n3 to be to be 1, 2, 3, or 4 (in the instant case, n1 to n3 are 0), thus the limitation wherein R1 to R3 as defined as different groups is not required.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ham further teaches wherein
PNG
media_image8.png
74
137
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
73
126
media_image9.png
Greyscale
are each
PNG
media_image10.png
99
70
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 does not require A to be Formula a-1 containing
PNG
media_image11.png
63
135
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, thus the limitation wherein
PNG
media_image11.png
63
135
media_image11.png
Greyscale
is defined as hydrogen and different aryl or heteroaryl groups is not required.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ham further teaches wherein group A is
PNG
media_image12.png
201
158
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ham further teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing compound
PNG
media_image13.png
472
534
media_image13.png
Greyscale
is compound 199
PNG
media_image14.png
453
390
media_image14.png
Greyscale
of instant application.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ham further teaches an organic electroluminescent device (Page 14, Example 1), comprising an anode (ITO, Page 14, paragraph under Example 1) and a cathode (Aluminum, Page 14, paragraph under Example 1) that are disposed opposite to each other, and a functional layer (examples of functional layers are, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, electron transport layers, shown in Page 14, paragraph under Example 1) disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the nitrogen-containing a compound according to claim 1 (in Example 1, Ham uses Compound 1, a specific compound of their Formula 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use modified compound of Ham
PNG
media_image13.png
472
534
media_image13.png
Greyscale
in place of Compound 1 of Example 1, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Ham according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED device with low driving voltage, low power consumption, high efficiency, and long lifespan (Page 9, para. 1), as taught by Ham. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ham further teaches an electronic apparatus comprising the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 15 (as an OLED is considered an electronic apparatus, modified Ham teaches the claimed limitations).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights