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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended, includes the limitation below.
PNG
media_image1.png
132
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is no support for this limitation in the specification. While individually, each of the possible selections are supported, there is no support for this form of “if, then” limitation in the description as originally filed.
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 1-3, 5-11, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2015/0349270) (Lee).
In reference to claims 1-3 and 5-8, Lee teaches a compound 88 as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
188
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound 88 is a positional isomer of the instantly claimed material, wherein the phenanthroline is bonded to the polycyclic ring system at a different position. 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 1: Reads on a compound of formula A wherein m is 1, n is 1, L is a single bond, R8 is a bond to L, R1 to R7 are each hydrogen, HAr is a group of structural formula 1, Y is O, X is C(CH3)2, R16 is a bonded to L, and R11 to R15 and R17 to R20 are each hydrogen.
For Claim 2: Reads on R8 is a bond
For Claim 3: Reads on n is 1 and m is 1.
For Claim 5: Reads on a single bond.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein X is C(CH3)2.
For Claim 7: Reads on methyl.
, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 10-11, 15, and 17-19, Lee teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the compound is used in an organic EL device comprising an organic layer between an anode and a cathode with several layers including emission layers, hole transport layers, electron transport layers etc. wherein the emission layer includes a host and dopant (Lee [0099] [0106] [0104]). Lee further teaches that the layers are deposited by wet coating or dry coating methods (Lee [0107]) and that such devices are used in flat panel displays (Lee [0009]).
While Lee does not exemplify a device with the specific configuration and composition, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used the materials taught by Lee in the device structures taught by Lee.
It is noted that Lee may not use the same names of layers as those instantly claimed however the layers meet all positional and compositional requirements of those claimed.
In reference to claim 9, Lee teaches the compound of chemical formula 1 as shown below
PNG
media_image3.png
280
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
168
194
media_image4.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the chemical formula 1, Ra and Rb are each methyl, X is O, L is a phenylene, and Y is a phenanthroline group as shown above wherein each Z is N.
Lee discloses the compound of chemical formula 1 that encompasses the presently claimed the compound of chemical formula 1, including wherein in the chemical formula 1, Ra and Rb are each methyl, X is O, L is a phenylene, and Y is a phenanthroline group as shown above wherein each Z is N. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Lee are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of chemical 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 chemical 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.
The compound above is a positional isomer of the instantly claimed material, wherein the polycyclic ring system is bonded to phenanthroline at a different position. 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.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2015/0349270) (Lee) in view of Liao et al (US 2006/0040132) (Liao).
In reference to claims 12-14 and 16, Lee teaches the device as described above for claim 10 and further teaches that the device can comprise additional layers. Lee does not expressly teach that the device comprises additional emitting layers with the claimed p type and n type charge generation layers between them.
With respect to the difference, Liao teaches, in analogous art, a tandem OLED device structure comprising a plurality of light emitting layers with n and p type charge generating layers in between (Liao see figs 3, 8) and teaches that the N-type layers comprise a host and a dopant wherein the hosts are phenanthroline derivatives (Liao [0115]). Liao further teaches that the use of such a device structure results in a device with high luminance and brightness, improved lifetime, improved color stability with simple fabrication steps (Liao [0008] to [0020]).
In light of the motivation of using the tandem device structure 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 tandem device structure as described by Liao in order to prepare a device with high luminance and brightness, improved lifetime, improved color stability with simple fabrication steps and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues “the claimed phenanthroline compounds exhibit unexpectedly improved longevity and high emission efficiency for the organic light-emitting diode, when used as a material for an N-type charge generation layer in an organic light-emitting diode with a tandem structure including a charge generation layer, attributable to the specific coupling position (R15-R20) and reduced linker length (≤18 carbons).”
This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
Applicant has not provided evidence to the claimed unexpected improvements over the prior art or record. It is noted that, for a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
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 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