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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 2009-0011488) (Lee) in view of Cha et al (US 2017/0365787) (Cha).
In reference to claim 11, Lee teaches spiro compounds of formula (1) as shown below for use in an organic electroluminescent device material such as an electron transport layer
PNG
media_image1.png
335
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein Sp is carbon, Ri is an annular structure such as a fluorenyl group (as in examples), R1 and R3 are each hydrogen and R2 is a phenyl substituted by a substituted heteroaryl group (Lee [0009] [0035] [0016]).
Lee discloses the compound of formula 1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein Sp is carbon, Ri is an annular structure such as a fluorenyl group (as in examples), R1 and R3 are each hydrogen and R2 is a phenyl substituted by a substituted heteroaryl group. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of the Lee are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula (1) to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Lee and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Lee teaches that the heterocyclic group can be a variety of groups comprising 5 to 50 atoms and includes some specific examples including electron transport moieties such as pyridine, pyrimidine, quinoline, and iso-quinoline groups but does exemplify a triazine group.
With respect to the difference, Cha teaches, in analogous art, similar spiro compounds for use in an electron transport layer (Cha [0205]) of an organic electronic device and that heterocyclic substituents in these materials are preferably selected from triazine, pyrimidine, pyridine, quinoline, iso-quinoline etc. (Cha [0177]).
That is, the substitution of the a triazine of Cha for the heterocyclic group of Lee, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of providing an electron transporting material. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Furthermore, it is noted that compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound presently claimed, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
For Claim 11: Reads on a compound of formula (I) wherein a is 1, A is phenylene, and L is a triazine.
In reference to claim 12, Lee in view of Cha teaches the compound as described above for claim 11 and further teaches that the compound is used in a layer of an organic EL device (Lee [0006]).
Lee further teaches that these compounds have excellent thermal evaporation properties, high solubility in organic solvents, high yield of wet tablets and wet film formation such as inkjet or spin coating.
While Lee does not exemplify a layer comprised of this preferred material of those taught there, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have prepared a layer from the compound of Lee in view of Cha with the anticipation of preparing a device comparably effective as those in the examples of Lee.
In reference to claim 1, Lee in view of Cha teaches the compound as described above for claim 11 and further teaches that the compound is included in an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer and an electron transport layer among other layers wherein the compound is included in the electron transport layer or electron injection layer.
Lee further teaches that these compounds have excellent thermal evaporation properties, high solubility in organic solvents, high yield of wet tablets and wet film formation such as inkjet or spin coating and that the device comprising this has excellent heat resistance, high stability of the thin film constituting the device, long life, high color purity and luminous efficiency and low voltage driving.
While Lee does not exemplify a device with this specific configuration, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have prepared a device with the compound of Lee in view of Cha with a typical device configuration as described therein with the anticipation of preparing a device comparably effective as those in the examples of Lee.
For Claim 1: Reads on a device of the claimed structure wherein compound is the compound of formula I wherein a is 1, A is phenylene, and L is a phenyl substituted triazine.
For Claim 2: Reads on wherein A is phenylene.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein L is substituted by phenyl.
For Claim 7: Reads on wherein the layer consists of the compound.
For Claim 9: Reads on wherein the layer is as claimed.
For Claim 10: Reads on the claimed configuration.
In reference to claim 13-14, Lee in view of Cha teaches an organic electroluminescence device as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the device can be used in a display or lighting device (Lee [0007]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used the device in the taught application as described by Lee despite Lee not exemplifying such a device in the disclosure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cha as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song et al (US 2009/0128012) (Song).
In reference to claim 8, Lee in view of Cha teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Lee does not specifically teach that the electron transport layer further includes a dopant.
With respect to the difference, Song teaches in related art, an electron transport layer that is doped with a metal compound as described therein and further teaches that when such a device is included in the device the device has improved driving voltage, efficiency and lifetime and lower power consumption (Song [0009]-[0010]).
In light of the motivation of using the metal compound in the electron transport layer as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the metal compound as described by Song in order to improve driving voltage, efficiency and lifetime, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the rejections over Lee in view of Cha, Applicant argues that Lee discloses compounds like compound 75 which differ because that compound includes a carbazole instead of a substituted triazine. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. Lee teaches a heterocycle and includes a variety of examples of heterocycles. Cha specifically teaches substituted triazines in similar compounds.
Applicant further argues that such selections give rise to unexpected results as demonstrated by way of a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132.
In the declaration Applicant presents tables of data showing that a difference between triazine and pyrimidine results in different glass temperatures of 6 to 7 degrees. It is unclear if such a difference represents a statistically and practically significant difference. In contrast, the previous comparison had a lower g lass temperature by 52 or 53 degrees. The small difference in measured glass temperatures does not appear to be statistically or practically significant.
Applicant further points to data in an additional table wherein the same comparison is made with respect to predicted HOMO and LUMO and dipole moments from computational calculations. These data are not evidence of unexpected results but rather predictions about what values would be expected for these materials.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jennifer A. Boyd 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 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786