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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 26, 31, 33, 34-38, 41-45, 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tasaki (US 2020/0407315 A1).
Regarding Claims 26, 31, 33, 34-37, 41, 42 , Tasaki teaches a material represented by Tas-pg 32 (page 32):
PNG
media_image1.png
400
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ras-pg 32 reads on applicants’ Formula 1 wherein D11 and D12 = Formula 12 and 12F, k =1; m=1; n = 2, R = H; in Formula 2 p = 2 with one = Formula 14, R = H; two = Formula 15, X11 = S (per claims 26, 31, 33, 34-35, 37, 41-42).
Tas-pg32 shows CN to Cn as para as Formula 130 (per claim 36)
Regarding Claim 38, Tasaki’s Ras-pg32 reads on Formula 113:
PNG
media_image2.png
409
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R101 and R104 = H, R103 and D11 are labeled above (per claim 38).
Regarding Claims 43-45, Tasaki teaches an organic EL device includes a pair of electrodes and an organic layer between the pair of electrodes. The organic layer includes a layer formed of an organic compound (Tas-pg32). The organic EL device includes at least one organic layer. At least one layer of the organic compound layer is an emitting layer (paragraphs 224-225) (per claims 43-45).
Regarding Claim 50, Tasaki teaches the organic EL device can be used in a light-emitting unit such as a display unit include a display component (e.g., an organic EL panel module), TV, mobile phone, tablet and personal computer (paragraph 306) (per claim 50).
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.
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki (US 2020/0407315 A1).
Regarding Claims 39-40, Tasaki teaches Tas-pg 32 which shows n=2 and R as H.
Tas-pg32 is derived from generic Formula 12 (page 4):
PNG
media_image3.png
430
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ R corresponds to Rx.
Tasaki teaches Rx as a finite set of substituents which are viewed as functionally equivalent and readily exchangeable whereby upon selection give rise to obvious variants, absent unexpected results.
One such variant reading on the limitations of claim 40 is best viewed as a modification of Tas-pg32 wherein Rx as H is replaced with at least one Rx as aryl.
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 12 by selecting various functional equivalent substituents of Rx which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-30, 32, 38, 46-49.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 for 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