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 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.
Claims1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duck (WO 2020/135953 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5, 7, Duck teaches a boron derivative Formula IIIa-1 (page 9):
PNG
media_image1.png
426
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula IIIa-1 reads on applicants’ Formula 1wherein p = 0; Z = direct bond; n =1; n =0; m=1; RXIV= alkyl (page 2) (methyl page 6; corresponding to applicants’ R1); the remaining R(s) = H.
Duck teaches a finite set of option for the R substituents which are independently viewed as functionally equivalent whereby upon selection gives rise to obvious variants of Formula IIIa-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of generic Formula IIIa-1 by selecting various functional equivalent substituents which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-3, 5, 7).
Regarding Claims 8-9, 11-12, Duck teaches an OLED comprising an emission layer containing Formula IIIa-1 along with a host material (page 20) (per claims 8, 11-12). Formula IIIa-1 is present at 0.1 % to 99 % by weight, more particularly 1 % to 80 % by weight. In an alternative embodiment, the proportion of the organic molecule in the emission layer is 100 % by weight (page 20) (per claim 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Duck teaches the following OLED layering
PNG
media_image2.png
330
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(per claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15, Duck teaches the inventive compounds ( Formula IIIa-1) shows a emission wavelength range (page 18):
PNG
media_image3.png
86
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The office takes the position that a standard OLED essentially works by applying an electrical current to the device containing two electrodes with an emission layer there between which produces light by fluorescence or phosphorescence. The range taught by Duck completely encompasses applicants’ range (per claim 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 10, 13 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.
A comprehensive search did not show the limitations of the above claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss 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.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights