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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 27 April 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 6-9, 15, 21, 29-31, and 37 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 10-14, 16-20, 22-28, 32-36, and 38-47 are pending.
The amendments to claims 1 and 14 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 25-30, 35, and 45-46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0028015 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) set forth in the last Office action and the rejections of claims 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0028015 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and further in view of in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendments to claims 1 and 14 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16, 19, 25, 27-30, and 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricks et al. (US 2006/0159952 A1) (hereafter “Ricks”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 34, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricks et al. (US 2006/0159952 A1) (hereafter “Ricks”), and further in view of Ikenaga et al. (WO 2016/158363 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ikenaga”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendment to claim 20 has overcome the rejection of claim 20 and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 43-44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 20, 22-24, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 25-30, 35, and 45-46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0028015 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) set forth in the last Office action and the rejections of claims 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0028015 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and further in view of in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16, 19, 25, 27-30, and 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricks et al. (US 2006/0159952 A1) (hereafter “Ricks”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 34, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricks et al. (US 2006/0159952 A1) (hereafter “Ricks”), and further in view of Ikenaga et al. (WO 2016/158363 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ikenaga”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 20 and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 43-44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 20, 22-24, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10, 14, 16, 25, 27-28, 33, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ricks et al. (US 2005/0181232 A1) (hereafter “Ricks ‘232”) and as evidenced by Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0181350 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) and .
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 14, 16, 25, 27-28, 33-36, and 38: Ricks ‘232 discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode and containing a light emitting layer comprising the compounds shown below as host materials {paragraphs [0188]-[0189] and Table 1: Example 2}.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the compound above has the structure of the instant formula (10) where: R11 to R18 are hydrogen; L11 is a single bond; Ar11 is unsubstituted naphthyl; L12 is m-phenylene; Ar12 is unsubstituted phenyl.
Hatakeyama provides evidence that there is a natural abundance of deuterium in compounds {abstract and paragraph [0009]}.
Therefore, a portion of the compounds having the structure of the compounds of Ricks shown above would comprise deuterium at different positions corresponding to the hydrogen atoms. Therefore, the compounds having the structure of Ricks shown above would be present as a mixture in which the compounds are different in the differing amounts of deuterium in the different positions of the hydrogen atoms on the compounds.
Ricks teaches that the light-emitting layer is formed by vapor deposition where the host materials are vapor deposited from a vapor-deposition source by heating the vapor-deposition source to form the film comprising the film on a substrate {paragraphs [0188]-[0189] and Table 1: Example 2}. All the compounds having the structure shown above are evaporated from the same vapor-deposition source.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-14, 16-20, 22-28, 32, 35, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2008/0079356 A1) (hereafter “Park”) in view of Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”).
Regarding claims 1-5, 10, 12-13, 35, and 45: Park discloses the compound shown below {paragraph [0075]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
542
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park are compounds for use in organic electroluminescent devices {paragraphs [0015], [0028], [0042]-[0043], [0057], and [0094]-[0095]}. The compounds can be used as the light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraph [0095]}.
Park teaches that the compounds of Park have good solubility, good thermal stability, and allows for devices with good driving voltage and enhanced emission characteristics {paragraph [0079]}.
Park does not teach a specific organic light emitting device in which the compound of Park shown above is used as a light emitting dopant.
However, Park teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode and containing a light emitting layer {Fig. 1C as described in paragraphs [0080]-[0081]}. Park teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park can be used as the light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0081] and [0095]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Park shown above by using it as the light emitting dopant of light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Park described above, based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means providing a device using a compound of Park, taught by Park to have good solubility, good thermal stability, and allow for devices with good driving voltage and enhanced emission characteristics.
Park does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises an additional anthracene derivative that is different from the compound of Park.
Qiu teaches organic light emitting devices comprising a host material composition for the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device having a compound represented by structural formula A of Qiu and a compound represented by structural formula B of Qiu {p. 2, final paragraph}.
Qiu teaches that the host material composition of Qiu has high film stability, improving device lifetime {final 13 lines of p. 8 through line 12 of p. 9}.
Qiu exemplifies a composition comprising the compound shown below {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
680
1458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where the compound above of Qiu is present at a ratio of 10:3 with the other host material of the light emitting layer {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Park by using the host composition of Qiu described above, based on the teaching of Qiu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host material that has high film stability, improving device lifetime, as taught by Qiu.
Where in the resultant device, the compound of Qiu shown above can be equated with the instant first compound where the instant L12 is p-phenylene and the instant Ar12 is naphthyl.
Where in the resultant device, the compound of Park shown above can be equated with the instant first compound where the instant L21 is m-phenylene and the instant Ar21 is naphthyl.
Regarding claim 11 and 32: Park as modified by Qiu teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Park does not exemplify a specific doping concentration for the light emitting dopant of the light emitting layer.
However, Park teaches that the doping concentration of the compound of Park shown above when used as the light emitting dopant can be between 0.01 to 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a host {paragraph [0095]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the device of Park such that the doping concentration of the compound of Park was between 0.01 to 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the host composition of Qiu, based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable concentrations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
As described above, the compound of Qiu pictured above is present at a ratio of 10:3 with the other host material of the light emitting layer {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
Thus, in the resultant light emitting layer, for a basis of 100 parts by weight for the total weight of the light emitting layer: up to 15 parts would be the compound of Park and approximately 65 parts would the compound of Qiu picture above.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-18, 25-28, and 46: Park discloses the compound shown below {paragraph [0075]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
542
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park are compounds for use in organic electroluminescent devices {paragraphs [0015], [0028], [0042]-[0043], [0057], and [0094]-[0095]}. The compounds can be used as the light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraph [0095]}.
Park teaches that the compounds of Park have good solubility, good thermal stability, and allows for devices with good driving voltage and enhanced emission characteristics {paragraph [0079]}.
Park does not teach a specific organic light emitting device in which the compound of Park shown above is used as a light emitting dopant.
However, Park teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode and containing a light emitting layer {Fig. 1C as described in paragraphs [0080]-[0081]}. Park teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park can be used as the light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0081] and [0095]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Park shown above by using it as the light emitting dopant of light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Park described above, based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means providing a device using a compound of Park, taught by Park to have good solubility, good thermal stability, and allow for devices with good driving voltage and enhanced emission characteristics.
Park does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises an additional anthracene derivative that is different from the compound of Park.
Qiu teaches organic light emitting devices comprising a host material composition for the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device having a compound represented by structural formula A of Qiu and a compound represented by structural formula B of Qiu {p. 2, final paragraph}.
Qiu teaches that the host material composition of Qiu has high film stability, improving device lifetime {final 13 lines of p. 8 through line 12 of p. 9}.
Qiu exemplifies a composition comprising the compound shown below {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
680
1458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where the compound above of Qiu is present at a ratio of 10:3 with the other host material of the light emitting layer {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Park by using the host composition of Qiu described above, based on the teaching of Qiu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host material that has high film stability, improving device lifetime, as taught by Qiu.
Where in the resultant device, the compound of Qiu shown above can be equated with the instant first compound where the instant L22 is p-phenylene and the instant Ar22 is naphthyl.
Where in the resultant device, the compound of Park shown above can be equated with the instant first compound where the instant L31 is m-phenylene and the instant Ar31 is naphthyl.
Regarding claim 19: Park as modified by Qiu teaches all of the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above.
Park does not exemplify a specific doping concentration for the light emitting dopant of the light emitting layer.
However, Park teaches that the doping concentration of the compound of Park shown above when used as the light emitting dopant can be between 0.01 to 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a host {paragraph [0095]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the device of Park such that the doping concentration of the compound of Park was between 0.01 to 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the host composition of Qiu, based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable concentrations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
As described above, the compound of Qiu pictured above is present at a ratio of 10:3 with the other host material of the light emitting layer {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
Thus, in the resultant light emitting layer, for a basis of 100 parts by weight for the total weight of the light emitting layer: up to 15 parts would be the compound of Park and approximately 65 parts would the compound of Qiu picture above.
Regarding claims 20, 22-24, and 47: Park discloses the compound shown below {paragraph [0075]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
542
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park are compounds for use in organic electroluminescent devices {paragraphs [0015], [0028], [0042]-[0043], [0057], and [0094]-[0095]}. The compounds can be used as the light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraph [0095]}.
Park teaches that the compounds of Park have good solubility, good thermal stability, and allows for devices with good driving voltage and enhanced emission characteristics {paragraph [0079]}.
Park does not teach a specific organic light emitting device in which the compound of Park shown above is used as a light emitting dopant.
However, Park teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode and containing a light emitting layer {Fig. 1C as described in paragraphs [0080]-[0081]}. Park teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park can be used as the light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0081] and [0095]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Park shown above by using it as the light emitting dopant of light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Park described above, based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means providing a device using a compound of Park, taught by Park to have good solubility, good thermal stability, and allow for devices with good driving voltage and enhanced emission characteristics.
Park does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises an additional anthracene derivative that is different from the compound of Park.
Qiu teaches organic light emitting devices comprising a host material composition for the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device having a compound represented by structural formula A of Qiu and a compound represented by structural formula B of Qiu {p. 2, final paragraph}.
Qiu teaches that the host material composition of Qiu has high film stability, improving device lifetime {final 13 lines of p. 8 through line 12 of p. 9}.
Qiu exemplifies a composition comprising the compound shown below {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
680
1458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where the compound above of Qiu is present at a ratio of 10:3 with the other host material of the light emitting layer {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Park by using the host composition of Qiu described above, based on the teaching of Qiu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host material that has high film stability, improving device lifetime, as taught by Qiu.
Where in the resultant device, the compound of Qiu shown above can be equated with the instant first compound where the instant L21 is p-phenylene and the instant Ar21 is naphthyl.
Where in the resultant device, the compound of Park shown above can be equated with the instant first compound where the instant L41 is m-phenylene and the instant Ar41 is naphthyl.
Park does not exemplify a specific doping concentration for the light emitting dopant of the light emitting layer.
However, Park teaches that the doping concentration of the compound of Park shown above when used as the light emitting dopant can be between 0.01 to 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a host {paragraph [0095]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the device of Park such that the doping concentration of the compound of Park was between 0.01 to 15 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the host composition of Qiu, based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable concentrations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
As described above, the compound of Qiu pictured above is present at a ratio of 10:3 with the other host material of the light emitting layer {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compound B15 of Qui is used as a host material for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15)}.
Thus, in the resultant light emitting layer, for a basis of 100 parts by weight for the total weight of the light emitting layer: up to 15 parts would be the compound of Park and approximately 65 parts would the compound of Qiu picture above.
Claim(s) 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2008/0079356 A1) (hereafter “Park”) in view of Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) as applied to claims 1, 14, and 20 above, and further in view of in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 39-40: Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
The compounds of Kim do not comprise any deuterium atoms.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}. Li teaches that the compounds can be fully deuterated {paragraphs [0025] and [0027]-[0028]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compounds of Kim such that the compounds of Kim comprised one or more deuterium atoms, based on the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maximize the number of C-D bonds in order to maximize the thermal stability of the compound to produce a fully deuterated compound, as taught by Li.
Regarding claims 41-42: Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above.
The compounds of Kim do not comprise any deuterium atoms.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}. Li teaches that the compounds can be fully deuterated {paragraphs [0025] and [0027]-[0028]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compounds of Kim such that the compounds of Kim comprised one or more deuterium atoms, based on the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maximize the number of C-D bonds in order to maximize the thermal stability of the compound to produce a fully deuterated compound, as taught by Li.
Regarding claims 43-44: Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 20, as outlined above.
The compounds of Kim do not comprise any deuterium atoms.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}. Li teaches that the compounds can be fully deuterated {paragraphs [0025] and [0027]-[0028]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compounds of Kim such that the compounds of Kim comprised one or more deuterium atoms, based on the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maximize the number of C-D bonds in order to maximize the thermal stability of the compound to produce a fully deuterated compound, as taught by Li.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights