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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 10/14/2025, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 5, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s argument of unexpected results, Examiner disagrees in four parts.
First, it is noted that applicant has only provided data from one trial of each compound from a single device structure. There is not enough evidence to support Applicant’s assertion that that these same results would be observed over a statistical analysis of multiple trials and multiple device structures. Without a statement of standard deviation, it is unclear whether these data represent a statistically significant improvement over the comparison devices or whether these data fall within standard deviation.
Second, the data presented is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because the independent claim is drawn to a compound while the data is drawn to the compound in a specific device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that common endeavors in the field of organic electroluminescent devices, such as improved luminance, external quantum efficiency, device lifetime, color purity, and driving voltage, can be influenced by a multitude of factors such as device layer order, layer thickness, as well as layer composition. There is not enough evidence to support Applicant’s assertion that the claimed improvements are the result of the claimed compound only, and would be observed in any device of any structure.
Third, the data presented is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because data has only been presented for compounds 1-1, 1-4, 1-3, 1-2, 1-28, and 1-47, while the claims are drawn to an exceedingly broad genus of compounds that may comprise exceedingly broad groups such as any C6-C60 aryl group and any heteroaryl consisting of 3, 4, or 5 condensed 6-memebered aromatic rings comprising 1, 2, or 3 nitrogen atoms (see for example the definition of moiety B). This surely represents thousands of compounds while data for only 6 compounds have been presented.
Fourth, Examiner notes that Applicant claims advantageous properties in comparison with “state-of-art references”, but no comparative data appears to be present. It is unclear what compound(s) comprise “state-of-art reference”, and whether any improvement is actually present.
For these reasons it is unclear whether these data represent a statistically significant improvement, whether these same results would be realized in any device, whether the full breadth of the claimed compounds would demonstrate advantageous properties, and whether improvements over the prior art are actually present.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
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 1-19 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.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim contains the limitation that G1 through G4 are independently selected from substituted or unsubstituted aryl and heteroaryl groups comprising one to three aromatic rings. However, this is immediately followed by the limitation that one of G1 through G4 is a substituted or unsubstituted phenylene group, and the other of G1 through G4 are substituted or unsubstituted phenyl groups. These two limitations contradict each other because in the first limitation, G1 through G4 may be selected as a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group comprising two or three aromatic rings or a heteroaryl group comprising one to three aromatic rings, but in the second limitation, G1 through G4 are each only a phenyl or phenylene group.
In continuing examination, Examiner will consider one of G1 through G4 is a substituted or unsubstituted phenylene group, and the other of G1 through G4 are substituted or unsubstituted phenyl groups
With respect to claim 4, the claim contains the limitation that the compound may comprise one or two structural moieties B. This is outside the scope of the independent claim which requires three phenyl groups (monovalent) and only one phenylene group (divalent).
In continuing examination, the limitation will be interpreted as only being selected from one structural moiety B.
With respect to claims 6 and 8, the claims contain the limitation that the compound comprises “at least one moiety B”. This is outside the scope of the parent claim, which only comprises one phenylene group. Even supposing that the compound comprises more than one moiety A, each moiety A comprises one phenylene group and could only share the one moiety B.
In continuing examination, this limitation will be interpreted as only comprising one moiety B.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 9-19 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 4, the claim contains the limitation that the compound may comprise one or two structural moieties B. This is outside the scope of the independent claim which requires three phenyl groups (monovalent) and only one phenylene group (divalent).
With respect to claims 6 and 8, the claims contain the limitation that the compound comprises “at least one moiety B”. This is outside the scope of the parent claim, which only comprises one phenylene group. Even supposing that the compound comprises more than one moiety A, each moiety A may only comprise one phenylene group and would share the one moiety B.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 1-9, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses a compound for an electroluminescent device (abstract), such as compound A7 (page 61), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from formula 40A-3(1) (page 49), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
202
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim also teaches that R42 is represented by Formula 6-123 (paragraph 0155 and page 25) and that R-45 is represented by formulae 10-102 (paragraph 0156 and page 41), which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
150
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
286
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant generic formula (I) when G1 through G3 are phenyl groups, G4 is a phenylene group, and structural moiety B is substituted triazine.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which easily transports electrons, increasing the exciton forming rate, and having relatively high resistance to charges (paragraph 0159, lines 5-11), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 2, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and structural moiety B does not comprise any naphthalene groups.
With respect to claim 3, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound only comprises one structural moiety A.
With respect to claim 4, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound comprises one structural moiety B.
With respect to claim 5, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and G1 through G3 are unsubstituted phenyl, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 6, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and moiety A is connected through moiety B via a single bond, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Kim also teaches that R42 may be represented by represented by formula 6-142 (paragraph 0155), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
164
366
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This satisfies the requirements of the instant claim that at least one of G1- G4 is substituted with an alkyl group.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which easily transports electrons, increasing the exciton forming rate, and having relatively high resistance to charges (paragraph 0159, lines 5-11), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 8, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Kim also teaches that R45 may be represented by formulae 5-1 (paragraph 0151), which is pictured below (paragraph 0109).
PNG
media_image6.png
128
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In this formula, e4 is 1 (paragraph 0120), and Z11 is a nitrile (cyano) group (paragraph 0111, line 2).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when moiety B is an aryl group substituted with pyridyl and substituted with nitrile.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which easily transports electrons, increasing the exciton forming rate, and having relatively high resistance to charges (paragraph 0159, lines 5-11), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 9 and 11, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and Kim also teaches an electronic device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode) (paragraph 0034, lines 1-5) and between the electrodes is a layer (an electron transporting layer) that comprises the compound (paragraph 0161).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound in an electron transport layer of a device with the claimed structure, as taught by Kim.
With respect to claim 15, Kim teaches the device of claim 9, and the device is an electroluminescent device (organic light-emitting, abstract).
With respect to claim 19, Kim discloses a compound for an electroluminescent device (abstract), such as compound A7 (page 61), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from formula 40A-3(1) (page 49), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
202
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim also teaches that R42 is represented by Formula 6-123 (paragraph 0155 and page 25) and that R-45 is represented by formulae 10-102 (paragraph 0156 and page 41), which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
150
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
286
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces instant compound 1-5.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which easily transports electrons, increasing the exciton forming rate, and having relatively high resistance to charges (paragraph 0159, lines 5-11), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0074451 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Kim teaches the device of claim 9, as discussed above.
Kim also teaches the compound is suitable for use in an electron transporting region (paragraph 0159, lines 13-15) and that electron transporting region may comprise sublayers including a hole blocking layer (paragraph 0160).
However, while an artisan of ordinary skill would recognize that an electron transport layer is capable of acting as a hole blocking layer, Kim does not teach nor fairly suggest that the compound is in a hole-blocking layer.
In analogous art, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an electron transport region and a heterocyclic compound which may transport electrons or block holes.
Lee teaches that an electron transport region may comprise a hole-blocking layer, an electron transporting layer, and an electron injecting layer (paragraph 0187). Lee also teaches that hole blocking layers may give a device excellent hole blocking characteristics without a substantial increase in driving voltage, as taught by Lee. (paragraph 0254).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electron-transporting pyrazine derivative of Kim into a hole-blocking layer as Lee and Kim teach that a hole blocking layer is a known sub-layer of an electron transport layer, and that hole blocking layers may give a device excellent hole blocking characteristics without a substantial increase in driving voltage, as taught by Lee.
Claims 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Kido et al. (U.S. Pat. No., 6,013,384 A).
With respect to claims 12-14, and 17, Kim teaches the electronic device of claim 9, as discussed above.
However, Kim does not teach nor fairly suggest that the electron transport layer further comprises an electrical n-dopant.
Kido teaches an analogous EL device wherein an organic layer adjacent to the cathode is doped with a metal dopant capable of acting as a donor dopant, which lowers the driving voltage of the device (abstract).
Kido teaches examples of the donor dopant include alkali metals (Col. 2, lines 55-57), such as lithium (Col. 4, line 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an alkali metal dopant, such as lithium, into the layer adjacent to the cathode (an electron transporting/hole blocking layer) in order to lower the driving voltage of the device, as taught by Kido.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0072073 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Kim teaches the electronic device of claims 9 and 15, as discussed above. However, Kim does not teach that the electronic device is an organic light emitting diode.
Lee teaches an analogous electronic device (abstract) of a similar structure, for use as a display device (paragraph 0005).
Lee teaches that organic light emitting diodes have recently drawn attention due to an increased demand for flat panel displays. As the work of Kim is drawn to organic electronic devices, it would have been obvious to use the organic electronic device of Kim in an organic light emitting diode or as a display device, as Lee teaches there is a demand for OLED flat panel displays.
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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786