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 CN202210316982.X filed in People's Republic of China on March 29, 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed September 28, 2023.
Claims 1 to 13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 28, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the labels in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 are low resolution and is hard to discern the numbers in the labels. For example, in figure 1, is hard to determine which label is 330 and which label is 350. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last line of the instant claim recites “with 6 to 12 f carbon atoms” and it seems to be a typographical error and should recite “with 6 to 12 carbon atoms”.
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.
Claim 1-13 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, the claim recites “the total number of carbon atoms of L3 and Ar is not more than 21”.
Is not clear if applicant is referring to (1) the sum of carbons between L3 and Ar is no more than 21 carbons or (2) the total number of carbon atoms in L3 is not more than 21 and the total number of carbon atoms in Ar is not more than 21. Furthermore, since L3 and Ar may be substituted or unsubstituted, it is unclear if the total number of carbon atoms is (1) including the substituent or (2) not including the substituents. This renders the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, the limitations are interpreted as: (1) the total number of carbon atoms in L3 is not more than 21, (2) the total number of carbon atoms in Ar is not more than 21, and (3) the total number of carbons does not include the substituents.
Regarding claims 2-13, the claims are rejected as being dependent on claim 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 (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 “the total number of carbon atoms of L3 and Ar is not more than 21”
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yong et al. (KR 20180096458 A, relying on WIPO English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yong teaches an organic compound, compound 42, that reads on Formula 1 of instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
461
1209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Formula 1
R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted aryl with 6 carbon atoms.
Ar is a substituted heteroaryl with 12 carbon atoms.
L1 and L3 are each an unsubstituted arylene with 6 carbon atoms.
L2 is a single bond.
The substituent of Ar is an aryl with 6 carbon atoms.
Since the claim is being interpreted as allowing for each of Ar and L3 to contain up to 21 carbon atoms, the total number of carbon atoms of L3 is 6.
Since the claim is interpreted as allowing for each Ar and L3 to contain up to 21 carbon atoms and the substituents are not included in the carbon count, the total number of carbon atoms of Ar is 12.
Regarding claim 2, Yong further teaches wherein compound 42
PNG
media_image2.png
527
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is Formula 1A
PNG
media_image3.png
445
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and R1, R2, Ar, L1, L2, and L3 have the same definitions as those in Formula 1 as described for claim 1 above in Paragraph 18.
Regarding claim 3, Yong further teaches wherein R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted aryl with 6 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 4, Yong further teaches wherein R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted phenyl.
Regarding claim 5, Yong further teaches wherein R1 and R2 are
PNG
media_image4.png
236
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 6, Yong further teaches wherein L1 and L3 are each an unsubstituted arylene with 6 carbon atoms and L2 is a single bond.
Regarding claim 7, Yong further teaches wherein L1 and L3 are each an unsubstituted phenylene and L2 is a single bond.
Regarding claim 8, Yong further teaches wherein Ar is a substituted
PNG
media_image5.png
162
306
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and the substituent is phenyl.
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong et al. (KR 20180096458 A, relying on WIPO English translation).
Regarding claim 9, Yong teaches the organic compound according to claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 18.
In compound 42, Yong does not specifically teach wherein
PNG
media_image6.png
128
337
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is one of the following groups:
PNG
media_image7.png
608
1121
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
However, Yong teaches that compound 42
PNG
media_image2.png
527
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a specific compound from Chemical Formula I
PNG
media_image8.png
585
873
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. Compounds of Chemical Formula I provide improved luminous efficiency, quantum efficiency, and lifespan characteristics to organic light-emitting devices (Page 001, para. 8). In Chemical Formula I, Yong teaches that Rb may be a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl (Page 002, para. 12). In compound 42, Yong teaches a substituted dibenzofuran as Rb. However, Yong also teaches compounds of Chemical Formula I where Rb is an unsubstituted dibenzofuran such as compound 92
PNG
media_image9.png
539
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 42 of Yong to have an unsubstituted dibenzofuran as Rb, because it would have been choosing an unsubstituted dibenzofuran over a substituted one, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the organic light emitting compound in the organic material layer of the organic light-emitting device of Yong and possessing the benefits of taught by Yong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chemical Formula I of Yong having the benefits of improved luminous efficiency, quantum efficiency, and lifespan characteristics taught by Yong 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_image10.png
495
1210
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Modified compound 42 reads on the instant claim wherein
PNG
media_image6.png
128
337
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is
PNG
media_image11.png
200
328
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yong teaches the organic compound according to claim 1 as described above in claim 1 and claim 9 in paragraphs 18 and 31 respectively.
Modified Yong does not specifically teach a compound from the group depicted in the instant claim.
However, in Chemical Formula I
PNG
media_image8.png
585
873
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, Yong teaches that m is an integer from 0 to 3. Compound 102
PNG
media_image12.png
587
854
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is an example of a compound where m is 0, thus no linker is present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify compound 42 of Yong to have an m that is 0 and no linker is present, because it would have been choosing a compound without a linker over a compound with a linker, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the organic light emitting compound in the organic material layer of the organic light-emitting device of Yong and possessing the benefits of taught by Yong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chemical Formula I of Yong having the benefits of improved luminous efficiency, quantum efficiency, and lifespan characteristics taught by Yong 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_image13.png
485
1209
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Further modified compound 42 is compound 2-10
PNG
media_image14.png
481
343
media_image14.png
Greyscale
of instant application.
Regarding claim 11, further modified Yong teaches an electronic element (organic electroluminescent device, Page 020, para. 2 to 3), comprising an anode (first or second electrode, Page 020, para. 3), a cathode (first or second electrode, Page 020, para. 3), and a functional layer (organic material layer, Page 020, para. 3) disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound according to claim 1 (Yong teaches that the organic light emitting compound of Chemical Formula I is applied to the organic electroluminescent device, Page 020, para. 2).
Regarding claim 12, further modified Yong teaches wherein the functional layer comprises a hole transport layer (Page 020, para. 4), and the hole transport layer comprises the organic compound (Page 021, para. 1). Yong also teaches that the electronic element is an organic electroluminescent device (Page 020, para. 2 to 3).
Regarding claim 13, further modified Yong teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising the electronic element according to claim 11 (as an organic electroluminescent device is considered an electronic apparatus, further modified Yong teaches the claimed invention).
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
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights