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 § 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) 1-4, 6, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2016/0087227) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, and 11-13, Kim teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0193]). Kim teaches that the light emitting layer comprises two host materials and a dopant (paragraph [0193]). Kim teaches that the second host material can be
PNG
media_image1.png
170
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which meets applicant’s formula 1, where L1 is a single bon, Z1 is a thiophene, Ar1-Ar4 is hydrogen atoms, and a and b are 1 (paragraph [0087]).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0087227) (hereafter “Kim”) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, and 11-13 above.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10, and 14-17, Kim teaches that the light emitting layer comprises two host materials and a dopant (abstract, paragraph [0193]). Kim teaches that the first host material can be
PNG
media_image2.png
151
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the second host material can be
PNG
media_image1.png
170
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0084]-[0087]). Kim teaches that these compounds are preferred hosts as the first host and the second host materials. Kim teaches that the ratio of the first host to the second host is 30:70 (paragraph [0193]). Kim teaches that the host materials are pre-mixed and vacuum deposited to make the light emitting layer (paragraph [0193]).
Kim does not specifically teach where the light emitting layer comprises
PNG
media_image2.png
151
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image1.png
170
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as the host materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to try to make an electroluminescent device according to Kim where
PNG
media_image2.png
151
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image1.png
170
163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
are selected as the first and second host materials. Both materials are preferred materials taught by Kim and it would have been obvious to select the two compounds and one would ordinary skill in the art would expect the mixture to work as the host material combination taught by Kim.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0087227) (hereafter “Kim”) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-17 above, and further in view of No et al. (WO 2018/174679), where No et al. (US 2020/0111969) (hereafter “No”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches that the first host material is a carbazole compound and can be biscarbazole compounds (paragraphs [0007] and [0084]).
Kim does not specifically teach a biscarbazole compound that is the same as the biscarbazole compounds claimed by the applicant.
No teaches biscarbazole compounds that can be used as a cohost material in electroluminescent devices (paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0141], and [0214]). No teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
217
236
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
251
250
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image5.png
171
217
media_image5.png
Greyscale
are a few examples as the biscarbazole host material (paragraph [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the biscarbazole host material of Kim for the biscarbazole cohost of No. The substitution would have been one biscarbazole cohost for another biscarbazole cohost and Kim does no limit the structure of the biscarbazole host material.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819) (hereafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 1-6, 11, 12, and 13, Ahn teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0424]-[0427]). Ahn teaches that the host material can have the following structure
PNG
media_image6.png
210
209
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0110]). Ahn does not limit how the Si group is attached to the phenylene group.
Ahn does not specifically teach a compound that meets the applicant’s claimed compounds.
The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state " 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) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c).” and “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) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
Isomers having the same empirical formula but different structures are not necessarily considered equivalent by chemists skilled in the art and therefore are not necessarily suggestive of each other. Ex parte Mowry, 91 USPQ 219 (Bd. App. 1950) (claimed cyclohexylstyrene not prima facie obvious over prior art isohexylstyrene). Similarly, homologs which are far removed from adjacent homologs may not be expected to have similar properties. In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960) (prior art disclosure of C8 to C12 alkyl sulfates was not sufficient to render prima facie obvious claimed C1 alkyl sulfate).
Homology and isomerism involve close structural similarity which must be considered with all other relevant facts in determining the issue of obviousness. In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967). Homology should not be automatically equated with prima facie obviousness because the claimed invention and the prior art must each be viewed “as a whole.” In re Langer, 465 F.2d 896, 175 USPQ 169 (CCPA 1972) (Claims to a polymerization process using a sterically hindered amine were held unobvious over a similar prior art process because the prior art disclosed a large number of unhindered amines and only one sterically hindered amine (which differed from a claimed amine by 3 carbon atoms), and therefore the reference as a whole did not apprise the ordinary artisan of the significance of hindered amines as a class.).”
It would have been a prima facie case of obviousness before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the attachment position of Si atom on the phenylene group in the compound of Ahn. The compound of Ahn is a positional isomer of the applicant’s claimed invention and the applicant’s claimed compound would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compound to act in similar manner to the other compounds of Ahn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tada et al. (WO 2021/131766) teaches triazine compounds that comprise two carbazole groups attached to it.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759