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 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2020/0052219) (Hwang) in view of Jang et al (US 2016/0276596) (Jang).
In reference to claims 1-13, Hwang teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, and an electron transport layer (Hwang [0173] [0040] [0243]) wherein the hole transport layer comprises a second compound of formula 2 as shown below (Hwang [0155]), the light emitting layer comprises a host compound H27 (Hwang [0202]) and a dopant that is a blue fluorescent dopant such as the pyrene derivative FD5 (Hwang [0238]), and the electron transport layer can include azine derivatives such as those of formula 602.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
212
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
390
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
154
414
media_image4.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the Formula 2, the compound is a compound 2 as shown below except wherein one of a4, a5 and a6 is 0 (Hwang [0018] [0155] [0078]).
PNG
media_image5.png
236
354
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given that Hwang discloses the compound of formula 2 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the Formula 2, the compound is a compound 2 as shown below except wherein one of a4, a5 and a6 is 0, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use compound, which is both disclosed by Hwang and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hwang does not expressly teach that the compound of formula 602 is a compound as instantly claimed but such materials are within the formula 602 (Hwang [0256]).
With respect to the difference, Jang teaches, in analogous art, triazine materials that are within the scope of formula 602 for an electron transport layer in an organic EL device such as compound of formula 1 and specifically compound 1-8 as shown below (Jang [0009] [0046] [0239]). Jang further teaches that these compounds when used in the electron transport layer can provide excellent stability and provide a device with long service life and can effectively block holes (Jang [0053] [0073]).
PNG
media_image6.png
122
310
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
193
642
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using compound 1-8 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 compound of formula 1-8 as described by Jang in order to provide excellent stability and provide a device with long service life and can effectively block holes and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Hwang in view of Jang does not expressly state that the formula 1, 2 or 3 are met, these rely upon inherent properties of the materials. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
While Hwang in view of Jang does not expressly state that the device emits light in the claimed range, the light emission is an inherent feature of the device. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the compound 2 of Hwang has two aryl substituents on the amine nitrogen that are identical whereas as claimed, the two aryl groups must be different. However, this differentiation is not significant. Hwang specifically teaches that these groups can be different. For example in [0078] but also in many other places Hwang teaches independent selection of substituents. Further, examples in Hwang of second compounds include those that have different substituents at the corresponding positions (see e.g. compound 9).
Applicant also argues that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest selecting any combination of compounds based on relative LUMO, singlet or triplet energy levels. This argument is not convincing. The prior art does not need to provide the same selection rationale for selecting materials but does indeed provide sufficient teaching to arrive at a device that inherently has the claimed relative properties.
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 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 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights