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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 objected to because of the following informalities. The structures are of too low resolution to be clear enough for publication. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numbering of views is incorrect. According to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u) “View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.”". Currently, the view numbers are preceded by the word "FIGURE".. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2012/0112174) (Lee).
In reference to claims 1 and 5-7, Lee teaches a compound B-1 as shown below that reads on the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1 wherein Ar is phenyl, Rn is hydrogen, Rm is hydrogen, L1 is a bond, a is 1, R1 and R2 are each biphenyl.
For Claim 5: Reads on wherein Ar is phenyl.
For Claim 6: Reads on where L1 is a direct bond.
For Claim 7: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are the same and are each biphenyl.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 110317206) (Chen).
In reference to claims 1 and 4-7 , Chen teaches the compound 68 as shown below that reads on the instant claims
PNG
media_image2.png
132
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1 wherein Ar is phenyl, Rn is hydrogen, Rm is hydrogen, L1 is a bond, a is 1, R1 and R2 are each substituted fluorenyl.
For Claim 4: Reads on formula 7.
For Claim 5: Reads on wherein Ar is phenyl.
For Claim 6: Reads on where L1 is a direct bond.
For Claim 7: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are the same and are each substituted fluorenyl.
In reference to claims 9-11, Chen teaches the device examples 2 and 13 that include anode, cathode, emitting layers, and hole transport layers wherein at least one hole transport layers comprises the compound 29 and 214 respectively that read on the instant claims (Chen [0023] [0113]-[120]).
PNG
media_image3.png
170
250
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
188
200
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 2, 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2012/0112174) (Lee).
In reference to claim 2, Lee teaches the compound B-1 as described above for claim 1. Lee further teaches that these the atoms in the groups can optionally include substituents such as deuterium and that R1 and R2 that can be selected from deuterium instead of hydrogen (Lee e.g. [0011] [0039]).
While Lee does not exemplify a compound wherein the groups are selected from deuterium instead of hydrogen, such a substitution is a taught alternative.
Lee discloses the compound B-1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein hydrogen atoms are substituted for deuterium. 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 B-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 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.
In reference to claims 3 and 8, Lee teaches the compound B-1 as described above for claim 1. Lee further teaches that the amino group of chemical formula 4 can be attached at various positions (Lee see formulae 1-3 [0010]). Furthermore, 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 6: Reads on e.g. formula 2.
For Claim 7: Reads on e.g. 2-61.
Conclusion
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