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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites that R3 and R4, and R1 and R2 which do not form the ring are independently a hydrogen atom, or a substituent Ra. However, Ra is not defined in claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of further examination, Ra will be interpreted as being selected from the group consisting of the groups recited in claims 11 and 12. Applicants should include the subject matter of claims 11 and/or claim 12 into claim 1 to overcome this rejection. Claims 2-10 and 13-20 are included in this rejection as they depend directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 11 and 12 are not included in this rejection as they define variable Ra. Correction is required.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 18, which is dependent on claims 1 and 16, recites the limitation “the electron-transporting region”. However, claims 1 and 16 do not recite such a limitation and the limitation “the electron-transporting region” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of further examination, claim 18 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 17, which does recite an electron-transporting region. Correction is required.
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 1-4, 7, 9-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 2021/0202849). Jung et al. has an effective filing date of 12/26/19, which is earlier than Applicants (unperfected) foreign priority date. The subject matter disclosed in the pre-grant publication to Jung et al. is fully supported in the foreign priority document KR-10-2019-0175302 of Jung et al.
Claims 1-4: Jung et al. teaches compound H2-95, which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
188
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 49), anticipates formula (1) of claim 1. As applied to formula (1), compound H2-95 has all variables R11-R18 equal to hydrogen atoms, L1 equal to a single bond, all R1-R4 equal to hydrogen atoms, and Ar1 and Ar2 equal to an unsubstituted naphthyl group. Compound H2-95 also anticipates formula (2-1) of claim 2 with all variable assignments being the same as in formula (1). In compound H2-95, L1 is a single bond, which anticipates claim 3 and Ar1 and Ar2 are an unsubstituted naphthyl group which anticipates claim 4.
Claims 7, 9, and 10: All variables R1-R4 and R11-R18 in compound H2-95 are equal to hydrogen atoms, thereby anticipating claims 7, 9, and 10.
Claims 11 and 12: Claims 11 and 12 further limit the embodiment of claim 1 where there is a substituent Ra, and when such substituent(s) exist, they are selected from the groups recited in the Markush groups recited in claims 11 and 12. However, because claims 11 and 12 further limit an optional embodiment, Jung et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claims 11 and 12 despite not teaching a substituent Ra.
Claims 13: For claim 13, the compound H2-107 as taught by Jung et al. is relied upon. Compound H2-107, which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
172
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, (page 51) anticipates formula (1) of claim 1 and which includes at least one deuterium atoms which anticipates claim 13. As applied to formula (1), compound H2-107 has variables R1-R4, R11-R13 , and R15-R18 equal to hydrogen atoms, R14 equal to a substituent Ra which is a deuterium-substituted phenyl group (which also anticipates the limitations for variable Ra of claims 11 and 12), L1 is equal to a single bond, Ar1 is equal to an unsubstituted naphthyl group, and Ar2 is equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Claims 14 and 15: Compound H2-95 is taught by Jung et al. as a material which may be employed in an organic electroluminescent device, which satisfies the intended uses of claims 14 and 15. Because the compound anticipates formula (1) of claim 1, it would be expected that it would also serve as an electron-transporting material.
Claims 16, 19, and 20: Jung et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices. The exemplified devices are comprised of an anode, a hole transport region comprising a first hole transport layer, a second hole transport layer, an emission region comprising a first host, a second host, and a dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (device examples 1 and 2). Compound H2-95 is taught as being one materials to serve as the second host material. The selection of any one of the explicitly taught second host materials, including compound H2-95, in the organic electroluminescent devices taught therein, is at once envisaged. A device prepared according to device examples 1 and 2 which comprises compound H2-95 as the second host material anticipates all of the device limitations of claims 16, 19, and 20.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itoi et al. (WO-2020209309) and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) to Itoi et al. (US 2022/0173334), which is the English language equivalent of WO-2020209309. While these two publications to Itoi et al. share the same assignee, there are no common inventors between these publications and the instant application. Therefore, the WO publication to Itoi et al. qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(1) and the pre-grant publication qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2).
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10: Itoi et al. teaches the compound aET-6, which has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
156
186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 329). As applied to formula (1) compound aET-6 has variables R1-R4 and R11-R18 equal to a hydrogen atom (which also anticipates claims 7, 9, and 10), L1 equal to a single bond (which also anticipates claim 3), Ar1 equal to an unsubstituted biphenyl group (which also anticipates claims 4 and 5), and Ar2 equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group (which also anticipates claims 4 and 5). Compound aET-6 also anticipates formula (2-1) of claim 2 and formula (4-2) of claim 6 with all variable assignments being the same as in claim 1.
Claims 11 and 12: Claims 11 and 12 further limit the embodiment of claim 1 where there is a substituent Ra, and when such substituent(s) exist, they are selected from the groups recited in the Markush groups recited in claims 11 and 12. However, because claims 11 and 12 further limit an optional embodiment, Itoi et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claims 11 and 12 despite not teaching a substituent Ra.
Claims 14-20: Device examples 54-62 are drawn to an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer comprising a host material and a dopant material, a hole blocking layer comprising compound aET-6, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (Table 47). The devices taught in examples 54-62 anticipate all of the device limitations of claims 14-17, 19, and 20. Further, the hole-blocking layer can also be referred to as an electron transporting layer. Therefore, the devices taught in table 47 also include a first and second electron transporting layer, with the first electron transporting layer including compound aET-6, thereby satisfying claim 18.
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 of this title, 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.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2021/0202859) as applied to claim 1 above.
While Jung et al. does not explicitly teach a compound which satisfies the limitations of claims 5 and 6, the overall teachings of Jung et al. renders obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of such compounds. Specifically, the second host material taught by Jung et al. has the general formula (2) as taught in paragraph 0014. Jung et al. further teaches in paragraph 0043 that variable HAr may be a substituted triazine in which preferably two groups are bonded. The groups specifically mentioned are phenyl, naphthyl, biphenyl, terphenyl, a phenyl substituted with deuterium, a naphthyl-phenyl, a naphthyl substituted with deuterium and a phenyl-naphthyl. In compound H2-95 HAr is shown to be an unsubstituted naphthyl group. However, given the teachings in paragraph 0043, the preparation of a compound analogous to compound H2-95 having phenyl groups bonded to the triazine group instead of naphthyl groups would have been prima facie obvious since Jung et al. explicitly teaches that such groups may be present. Such a compound would have a structure where Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by formula (b1) as recited in claim 5. Further, compound H2-95 having phenyl substitution instead of naphthyl substitution satisfies the structural limitations of formula (4-1) of claim 6 with all variables R1-R4 and R11-R18 equal to a hydrogen atom.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, claim 8 is free of any prior art rejections. The closest prior art regarding Applicants claimed compounds is Jung et al. While Jung et al. is not limited only to those compounds H2-1 through H2-139, the overall teachings of Jung et al. do not fairly teach or suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of a compound which satisfies formula (5) of claim 8. To arrive at such a compound using the teachings of Jung et al. would require the use of improper hindsight reconstruction as multiple variable selections and subsequent positional isomer bonding arrangements would need to be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766