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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takahashi et al (WO 2018235953 A1, hereinafter US 20210151687 A1 is cited as a US equivalent).
Takahashi discloses compounds of the general formula (3)
PNG
media_image1.png
172
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Ar1 to Ar4 are preferably substituted or unsubstituted phenyl or biphenyl [0076] and a specific example includes:
PNG
media_image2.png
256
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[p13] which reads on the claimed formula (1) wherein R17 and R26 are C6 aryl groups (phenyl). The above compound is used in the emitting layer of an OLED between an anode and a cathode, and the emitting layer further comprises an anthracene compound that reads on the claimed formula (20) [0105-0106, 0110 p26, 0174 p30 et seq, Examples] wherein the OLED includes the stack of organic layers: an anode/ a hole-injecting-transporting layer/an emitting layer/an electron-injecting-transporting layer/a cathode [0179 p109]. Anthracene based hosts exhibit delayed fluorescence [see Fukugawa et al (Organic Electronics 13 (2012) 1197–1203)].
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon et al (WO 2020159279 A1).
Yoon discloses compounds with the general formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
61
143
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
107
132
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p21 of WO document] which anticipate the compounds of claims 1-5. The compounds are used in a light emitting layer of an OLED, along with an electron transport and hole transport layer [p7, Example 1 p38] wherein the emitting layer also includes an anthracene compound that reads on the claimed formula (20) [Example 1, p38-39].
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itoi et al (WO 2020209299 A1, hereinafter US 20220165964 A1 is cited as a US equivalent).
The applied reference has a common Applicant and Inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Itoi discloses OLEDs with an emitting layer comprising a dopant including specific example BD-18:
PNG
media_image5.png
204
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[p152] which anticipates the compound of claims 2-5. Itoi teaches that the emitting layers also include a host that is an anthracene compound according to the claimed formula (20) [claim 1, examples]. The OLED also includes the claimed stack of layers [0460].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takahashi et al (WO 2018235953 A1, hereinafter US 20210151687 A1 is cited as a US equivalent).
Takahashi discloses the specific example
PNG
media_image6.png
163
481
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[p17]
and wherein Takahashi explicitly teaches that the unsubstituted phenyl groups above may be substituted [0076] wherein the substitution most preferably includes an alkyl group including 1 to 18 carbon atoms , an aryl group including 6 to 18 ring carbon atoms , and an heterocyclic group including 5 to 18 ring atoms [0098 p7].
This rejection is made under both 35 USC 102 anticipation and 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that the limited number of disclosed substituents would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to readily envisage the claimed alkyl and aryl substitution on the phenyl groups of claims 3-5, therefore the claims are anticipated. In the alternative, the claims are certainly 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, Takahashi teaches specific examples:
PNG
media_image7.png
211
704
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[p114] which are position isomers of the compounds of claims 3-5.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have expected the disclosed and claimed 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).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoon et al (WO 2020159279 A1).
Yoon discloses the generic formula
PNG
media_image8.png
193
387
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Wherein the diarylamines include
PNG
media_image9.png
80
78
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[p19] wherein the aryl groups, including the biphenyl may be substituted with alkyl or aryl groups [p12].
This rejection is made under both 35 USC 102 anticipation and 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that the limited number of disclosed substituents would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to readily envisage the claimed alkyl and aryl substitution on the phenyl groups of claim 6, therefore the claims are anticipated. In the alternative, the claims are certainly 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Itoi et al (WO 2020209299 A1, hereinafter US 20220165964 A1 is cited as a US equivalent).
The applied reference has a common Applicant and Inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
[p114] which are position isomers of the compounds of claims 3-5.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have expected the disclosed and claimed 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).
Itoi discloses OLEDs with an emitting layer comprising a dopant including specific example BD-18:
PNG
media_image5.png
204
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[p152] which is a position isomer of the compounds of claims 6.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have expected the disclosed and claimed 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).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
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