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 Objections
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, Applicant recites “an C1-10 alkyl”. It should be “a C1-10 alkyl”.
In claims 6-7, Applicant recites “where a formula contains no
PNG
media_image1.png
53
48
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, it means that, in
PNG
media_image2.png
37
79
media_image2.png
Greyscale
linked at this position, L2 is a single bond and Ar2 is hydrogen.” An amendment to “where a formula containing no
PNG
media_image1.png
53
48
media_image1.png
Greyscale
means that in
PNG
media_image2.png
37
79
media_image2.png
Greyscale
linked at this position, L2 is a single bond and Ar2 is hydrogen.” reads better.
In claim 10, Applicant reciters “, the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
40
91
media_image3.png
Greyscale
shown in Formula a-1 being selected …” An amendment to “, and the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
40
91
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in Formula a-1 is selected …”
In claim 13, Applicant recites “alternatively, the functional layer comprises an organic light emitting layer, the organic light emitting layer comprising the nitrogen-containing compound”. An amendment to “alternatively, the functional layer comprises an organic light emitting layer, wherein the organic light emitting layer comprises the nitrogen-containing compound” reads better.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are 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, Applicant recites “a structure shown in Formula a-1 or a structure shown in Formula a-2, and at least one of A1 and A2 is the structure shown in Formula a-1; …”
The claim language “a structure shown in Formula a-1” can be interpreted as any part of the structure within the structure represented by Formula a-1. It is unclear which part of structure is referred to in the Formula a-1. For instance, the Formula a-1 consists of multiple structures including L3 and Ar3. It is unclear which structure (i.e. L3, Ar3, or L3-Ar3) is required to satisfy the limitation of the claim, rendering this claim indefinite.
Similarly, the claim language “a structure shown in Formula a-2” can be interpreted as any part of the structure represented by Formula a-2. It is unclear which part of structure is referred to in the Formula a-2. For instance, the Formula a-2 consists of multiple structures including L, Het, L1, L2, Ar1, and Ar2. It is unclear which structure (i.e. L, Het, L1, L2, Ar1, Ar2, or any combination thereof) is required to satisfy the limitation of the claim, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language “shown in” as “represented by”. That is, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean “a structure represented by Formula a-1 or a structure represented by Formula a-2, and at least one of A1 and A2 is the structure represented by Formula a-1; …”
Regarding claims 2-14, claims 2-14 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 1.
Claim 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant recites “the structure shown in Formula a-1, …”
The claim language “the structure shown in Formula a-1” can be interpreted as any part of the structure within the structure represented by Formula a-1. It is unclear which part of structure is referred to in the Formula a-1. For instance, the Formula a-1 consists of multiple structures including L3 and Ar3. It is unclear which structure (i.e. L3, Ar3, or L3-Ar3) is required to satisfy the limitation of the claim, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language “shown in” as “represented by”. That is, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean “the structure represented by Formula a-1,…”
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 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.
(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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stoessel et al. (US 2021/0384443 A1, hereafter Stoessel).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-11, Stoessel discloses a compound comprising a structure of Formula (I) and used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0001], [0007], [0023]) and exemplifies Formula 29 ([0196]).
PNG
media_image4.png
380
589
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Formula 29 of Stoessel has identical structure as Applicant’s nitrogen-containing compound. The structure enclosed by a dashed box is a benzocyclohexane. It is noted that the benzocyclohexane is substituted by two methyl and one ethyl groups at positions 1, 3, and 4 of the cyclohexane ring as annotated in the figure above, and the two methyl and one ethyl groups are connected to form cycloalkyl rings.
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 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, 3-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2021/0384443 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Stoessel discloses a compound comprising a structure of Formula (I) and used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0001], [0007], [0023]) and exemplifies Formula 29 ([0196]). The Formula 29 of Stoessel has identical structure as Applicant’s nitrogen-containing compound of the instant claim 1 as outlined above.
Stoessel does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Formula 29 of Stoessel; however, Stoessel does teach that the compound can be used as the matrix material ( [0197], [0243]).
Stoessel teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode ([0344]-[0347]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Formula 29 of Stoessel by incorporating it into the organic light emitting layer as the matrix material, as taught by Stoessel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of matrix materials of Stoessel in the device of Stoessel would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device of Stoessel (1) comprising an anode, an organic light emitting layer containing the compound of Formula 29 of Stoessel as a matrix material, and a cathode, wherein the organic electroluminescent device is equated with an electronic apparatus.
Regarding claims 1, 3-11, and 13-14, Stoessel discloses a compound comprising a structure of Formula (XV) and used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0001], [0007], [0023]). Stoessel exemplifies Formula 29 ([0196]).
PNG
media_image5.png
367
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Formula 29 of Stoessel has aliphatic polycyclic ring structure enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above which is not same as the aliphatic polycyclic ring of the Formula (XV); however, Stoessel does teach that the aliphatic polycyclic ring can be Formula (N-6),
PNG
media_image6.png
188
166
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1 can be hydrogen and v can be 0 ([0054], [0028], [0046]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Formula 29 of Stoessel by substituting the aliphatic polycyclic ring structure with the Formula (N-6), wherein R1 is hydrogen and v is 0, as taught by Stoessel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified aliphatic polycyclic ring structures in the compound of Stoessel would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound of Stoessel.
PNG
media_image7.png
245
697
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Stoessel has identical structure as Applicant’s nitrogen-containing compound, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 and 3-11.
Stoessel does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Modified compound of Stoessel; however, Stoessel does teach that the compound can be used as the matrix material ( [0197], [0243]).
Stoessel teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode ([0344]-[0347]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Modified compound of Stoessel by incorporating it into the organic light emitting layer as the matrix material, as taught by Stoessel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of matrix materials of Stoessel in the device of Stoessel would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device of Stoessel (2) comprising an anode, an organic light emitting layer containing the compound of Modified compound of Stoessel as a matrix material, and a cathode, wherein the organic electroluminescent device is equated with an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 13-14.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2021/0384443 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-11, and 13 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 14, the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Stoessel (1) and (2) read on all the features of claim 13 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an organic light emitting layer containing the compound of Formula 29 of Stoessel (or the Modified compound of Stoessel) as a matrix material, and a cathode.
Stoessel does not discloses a specific display device comprising the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Stoessel.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic electric element (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a control part (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the organic electric element of Pang provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Stoessel by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Stoessel and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the organic electroluminescent devices in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a display device comprising the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Stoessel (1) or (2), wherein the display device is an electronic apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (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 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights