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 .
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.
Restriction/Election Requirement
The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s election of Group I (directed to L101 = single bond) in response to the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 12/03/25.
The election reads on Claims 1, 5-8, 12-20, 27-33, and 37.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-20, 27-33, and 37 are pending. Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12, 14-17, 18-20, 27-33, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (WO 2008/145239 A2) in view of Kubota et al. (US 2007/0152565 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2010/0187505 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2008/145239 A2 (herein referred to as “Stoessel et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all figures and page and paragraph numbers references herein correspond to those found in the national phase publication.
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 18-20, 27-33, and 37, Stoessel et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising a pair of electrodes, interposed therein at least one light-emitting layer comprising its inventive compounds as host (or dopant) material (Abstract; [0062]-[0063], [0067]-[0069]). The organic EL device comprises three sequential light-emitting layers: blue, green, and red or orange light-emitting layers (wherein any one of the green and red or orange can be defined as the second emitting layer) interposed between a pair of electrodes which emit at 380-750 nm, and wherein at least one of these layers, particularly the blue light-emitting layer (first emitting layer) preferably comprises its inventive compounds ([0063], [0066]-[0067]). The light-emitting layers each comprise a host material and a “plurality of dopants” (third and fourth compounds) ([0068]). Stoessel et al. discloses the following embodiment:
PNG
media_image1.png
148
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 8) (first compound) such that R101 = R103-112 = hydrogen and R102 = Applicant’s formula (11) (with mx = 1, L101 = single bond, and Ar101 = unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl)) of Applicant’s formula (1). However, Stoessel et al. does not explicitly disclose a second compound (as a second host material).
Kubota et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
190
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 7) (second compound) such that R201-208 = hydrogen, L201-202 = single bond,
Ar202 = unsubstituted aryl group having 10 ring carbon atoms (naphthyl), and Ar201 = substituted aryl group having 10 ring carbon atoms (substituted naphthyl) of Applicant’s formula (2) as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with high efficiency and long life (Abstract; [0058]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound AN2 as disclosed by Kubota et al. (above) into any of the light-emitting layers of the organic EL device as disclosed by Stoessel et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kubota et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with high efficiency and long life.
Regarding Claim 7, Stoessel et al. discloses another embodiment:
PNG
media_image3.png
188
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 20) such that mx = 1, L101 = single bond, and R121-130 = R133-134 = bond to L101 or hydrogen of Applicant’s formula (101).
Regarding Claim 12, Stoessel et al. discloses another embodiment:
PNG
media_image4.png
220
886
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 47) such that L132 = single bond, R122 = substituted aryl group having 18 ring carbon atoms (substituted benz[a]anthryl), L131 = single bond, R131 = hydrogen, and R121 = R123-130 = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula (11B).
Regarding Claim 14, Stoessel et al. discloses the organic EL device of Claim 12 as shown above. Stoessel et al. discloses that its inventive compounds correspond to the following formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
190
634
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0021]) where m, n = 0-3, R = hydrogen (among others), and Ar and Y = divalent aromatic ring system ([0010]-[0012], [0015]). However, Stoessel et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the compounds as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound (274) as disclosed by Stoessel et al. such that L131 = substituted arylene group having 18 ring carbon atoms (substituted benz[a]anthryl), R131 = hydrogen, and R121-130 = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula (11B). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in position of the substituted benz[a]anthryl group (dotted box below), producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; further motivation exists, including the fact that the modification merely involves the selection of one possible embodiment from a highly finite list as envisioned from the scope of Stoessel et al.’s general formula (particularly in regards to the manner of connection between [Ar]m and Y), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image6.png
207
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 15-17, Stoessel et al. discloses another embodiment:
PNG
media_image7.png
360
444
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 28) R111-112 = Applicant’s formula (11) (with mx = 1, L101 = single bond, and Ar101 = unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl)), R101 = unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms (N-carbazolyl), and R102-110 = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula (1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (WO 2008/145239 A2) in view of Kubota et al. (US 2007/0152565 A1) and Kubota (US 2007/0273272 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2010/0187505 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2008/145239 A2 (herein referred to as “Stoessel et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all figures and page and paragraph numbers references herein correspond to those found in the national phase publication.
Stoessel et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device of Claim 12 as shown above. Stoessel et al. discloses its inventive compounds of formula (1) as host material in the (blue) light-emitting layer ([0066]); however, alternatively, its inventive compounds can serve as dopant material or as hole-transporting and/or electron-transporting materials (comprising the hole-transporting and/or electron-transporting layers). However, Stoessel et al. does not explicitly disclose a first compound of Applicant’s formula (103).
Kubota discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image8.png
312
410
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0019]) where n = 1-4, L = single bond or divalent aromatic hydrocarbon cyclic group (among others), and Ar = hydrogen or aromatic hydrocarbon cyclic group (among others) ([0021]-[0023]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image9.png
256
394
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(page 8) such that L132 = unsubstituted arylene group having 6 ring carbon atoms (phenylene), L131 = single bond, R131 = hydrogen, and R101-112 = R121-130 = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula (103). Kubota discloses its inventive compounds as host material, the use of which results in a device with great efficiency of light emission (Abstract; [0053]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound BAN-17 as disclosed by Kubota into any of the light-emitting layers of the organic EL device as disclosed by Stoessel et al. (as host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kubota, which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with great efficiency of light emission.
Furthermore, Kubota does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein L132 = single bond. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound BAN-17 such that L132 = single bond of Applicant’s formula (103). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one functional linking group (phenylene) for another (single bond) selected from a highly finite list of possible classes as taught by Kubota (in regards to the scope of the L group in its general formula), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786