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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new claims do not contain structure B-257 anymore, and that Kim et al (WO 2020085829 A1, hereinafter US 20220006019 A1 is cited as a US equivalent) does not disclose the provisos at the end of claims 22 and 32. This argument is not convincing. As discussed in the rejection 103 rejection below, the exemplified HT compound of Kim still makes obvious many of the structures of the claim 13, and the general disclosure of Kim also teaches obvious variants of the exemplified structure that include the provisos at the end of claims 22 and 32.
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.
Claim(s) 13-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020085829 A1, hereinafter US 20220006019 A1 is cited as a US equivalent)
Kim discloses OLEDs having a light emitting layer and a hole transport or hole injection layer between a first and second electrode [0071-0073] wherein the light emitting layer includes a host compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
266
299
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0008, p1]
Wherein the Ar1 reads on the claimed Ar1 and Ar2 includes benzofuranyl [0008-0012, 0026] exemplified as:
PNG
media_image2.png
203
399
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
189
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[pp14-15]
And wherein the compounds may include 8 or more deuterium atoms [0013, claim 1]. The hole transporting layer includes a compound of the formula (3):
PNG
media_image4.png
105
238
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p93, 0073-0075]
Exemplified by:
PNG
media_image5.png
322
435
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[p99, Examples]
Regarding claim 13, any of the claimed embodiments of Formula B are obvious variants of HT-1, such as B-258 and B-259 and others which are position isomers of HT-1.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have expected the disclosed position isomers to have similar if not equivalent properties based on the structural similarities of the two compounds. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) 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).
Regarding claim 22, in HT compound of the formula (3):
PNG
media_image4.png
105
238
media_image4.png
Greyscale
compound Y3 and Z3 include substituted di-(C6-C30)arylamino [0074], wherein the C6-C30 aryl group overlaps substantially with the (C12-C30) aryl group of the claim and “aryl” explicitly includes naphthalene groups and others [0025] that read on the claimed (C12-C30) aryl group. This would be in place of the substituted (C6)aryl groups of the exemplified HT-1. Alternatively, the claimed compounds with C12-C30 arylene groups for L2 or L3 are obvious over the structurally similar exemplified compound HT-1 having C6 arylene group in the place of L3.
Regarding claim 32, in HT compound of the formula (3):
PNG
media_image4.png
105
238
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein X3 includes NR1-1 or CR102R103 wherein R101, R102, R103 can each be several different silyl groups, or (C6-C30)aryl group [0074] and wherein “aryl” explicitly includes polycyclic groups like naphthalene and biphenyl groups [0025].
The OLED may be used in a display device [0088].
Regarding claims 17-18 and 26-27, the group Ar2 in formula 1 may be substituted with the groups of the claim [0011, 0029].
Regarding claim 19 and 29, Kim discloses the claimed compounds including the substituted benzofuranyl group, as discussed above, which has the aryl and heteroaryl substitution of the claimed compounds [0011, 0029], and includes all the position isomers of the benzofuranyl group substitution [0026].
If Applicant argues that the claimed embodiments are not disclosed with sufficient specificity and that examiner is picking and choosing with improper hindsight, Examiner notes that the rejection is made under 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that there a finite number of disclosed substituents and position isomers that would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to prepare the claimed compounds. The claims are obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Alternatively, the exemplified disclosed compounds H-40 and H-45 differ from some claimed compounds only in additional phenyl substituents and possibly deuterium groups. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have expected the disclosed and claimed compounds to have similar if not equivalent properties based on the structural similarities of the two compounds. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Claim(s) 13-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020085829 A1, hereinafter US 20220006019 A1 is cited as a US equivalent) in view of Kim899 (US 20170200899 A1).
If Applicant feels that Kim does not disclose the Formula B of claims 13, 22 and 32 with sufficient specificity, following rejection concurrently applies.
Kim, discussed above, discloses HT compounds that correspond to the claimed Formula B, including the example:
PNG
media_image5.png
322
435
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Kim does not disclose a specific example of claim 13 or a specific example with the groups at the end of claims 22 and 32.
Kim899 discloses OLEDs similar to those of Kim, including an anthracene-based compound similar to the claimed Formula A [0010] and including a HT compound including the same compound as HT-1 of Kim [p90, HT3] as well compounds that read on claims 13 and 22 such as HT10 [p91] having C12 group in the L linking group of Formula and polycyclic aryl groups in the claimed R21 and R22 as in HT8 [p91]:
PNG
media_image6.png
351
358
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
379
350
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the HT compounds of the claims in the composition of Kim because Kim899 teaches that the claimed HT compounds and the HT-1 of Kim are functionally equivalent and it is prima facie obvious to substitute art-recognized functional equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP § 2144.06; In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
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 MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766