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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 10 and 11 were erroneously not indicated in the statement of rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) set forth in the last Office action. The resultant compound in the rejection would comprise an unsubstituted phenyl substituent as the instant R1 and the sum of the instant a1 and a2 would have been 1, as indicated in paragraph 12 of the last Office action. As such, the resultant compound met the limitations of the instant claims 10 and 11.
However, as these claims were not indicated as being rejected over Mujica-Fernaud, Applicant was not given the opportunity to properly respond to the rejection with respect to claims 10 and 11. As such, the current Office action has been made non-final.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed 13 January 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 26-29 of the reply filed 13 January 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) set forth in the last Office action have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January regarding the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.) set forth in the last office action; the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), , and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in my last Office action; and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the data in Table 1 of the instant specification represents a showing of unexpected result commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, showing nonobviousness over the cited references.
While it appears that the proffered results are unexpected, they do not appear to be commensurate in scope with the current claims. For example, none of the tested results are for device comprising compounds having deuterium substituents. Thus, it cannot be determined that devices comprising the compounds comprising deuterium as the instant R1 and/or R2 possess the same results as the experimental examples.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
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) 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 9-20: Park discloses the compound shown below {p. 20}.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The compound has the structure of the instant Formula 1A-12 of claim 20. Note that the spiro carbon is drawn as 2-dimensional in the structural formulas, but would have a 3-dimensional structure in reality, and two of the bonds to the spiro carbon would be perpendicular to the other two bonds of the spiro carbon.
Claim(s) 9-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2023/096210 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Park ‘210”).
Regarding claims 9-15, 17, and 19: Park ‘210 discloses the compound shown below {p. 14}
PNG
media_image2.png
576
1174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
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) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6: Park discloses the compound shown below {p. 20}.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the compound Park shown above.
However, Park teaches that the compounds of Park are useful as materials of a hole transporting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0061] and [0141]}.
Additionally, Park teaches a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an interlayer containing a light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}.
The interlayer comprises a hole transport region between the light-emitting layer and the anode {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}. The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}. The hole transport layer comprises the compound shown below {paragraphs [0061] and [0141]}.
The interlayer comprises an electron transport region between the light-emitting layer and the cathode {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}. The electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer and an electron transport layer {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}.
Park teaches that by using the compound according to the present invention, high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance of the element can be achieved, and color purity and lifespan of the element can be greatly improved {paragraph [0016]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Park described above, by using the compound of Park as the material of the hole transport layer of the device of Park, based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce devices having high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage, and high heat resistance as well as improved color purity, as taught by Park.
An organic light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.).
Regarding claim 5: Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Park does not describe that the organic light-emitting device emits blue light.
Mishima teaches that FIrpic is a blue light-emitting phosphorescent dopant {paragraph [0162]}.
Baranoff teaches that FIrpic as a maximum emission wavelength of 475 nm {p. 8323, 1st col., 3rd paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light-emitting device of Park such that FIrpic was used as a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant, based on the teaching of Mishima. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a blue-light emitting device, as taught by Mishima.
The resultant device would emit blue light from the emission layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica- Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 7: Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Park further teaches that the organic light-emitting device of taught by Park can be used in a display device {paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and [0143]}.
Park does not exemplify that the display device is a flat panel display or that the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor.
Kim ‘710 teaches flat panel display comprising organic light-emitting devices as the light-emitting elements {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0060]}.
The display comprises a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0039] [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode, Element 260 is the source electrode, and Element 220-3 is the active layer.}
The first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraph [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode and is in electrical contact with the electrode of the organic light-emitting device, Element 310.}.
Kim ‘710 sought to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield {abstract, paragraph [0019], and [0059]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Park by using the device as light-emitting elements of the flat panel display device of Kim ‘710, based on the teachings of Kim ‘710. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield, as taught by Kim ‘710.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”).
Regarding claim 8: Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Park further teaches that the organic light-emitting device of taught by Park can be used in a display device {paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and [0143]}.
Kim ‘985 teaches a display device comprising a substrate, and on the substrate, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, an organic light emitting device corresponding to each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0044]}. The display device additionally comprising a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions and disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode {paragraphs [0050]-[0052]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Park by including the device in the display device structure of Kim ‘985 described above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘985. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) and Hirata et al. (“Relationship between room temperature phosphorescence and deuteration position in a purely aromatic compound”, Chemical Physics Letters, 591 (2014) pp. 119-125.) (hereafter “Hirata”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 12-19: Mujica-Fernaud discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an interlayer containing a light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}.
The interlayer comprises a hole transport region between the light-emitting layer and the anode {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}. The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}. The hole transport layer comprises the compound shown below {(paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3), (p. 103, Compound HTM1; p. 18, Compound 13 has the structure of Compound HTM1)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
700
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The interlayer comprises an electron transport region between the light-emitting layer and the cathode {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}. The electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer and an electron transport layer {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}.
Compound HTM1 of Mujica-Fernaud does not meet the limitations of the current claims, because both of the instant a1 and 2 in Compound HTM1 of Mujica-Fernaud are 0 while the claims require the sum of a1 and a2 to be at least one.
Compound HTM1 of Mujica-Fernaud has the structure of formula 1 of Mujica-Fernaud {(paragraph [0012]: formula 1), (paragraph [0069]: the compounds having the structure of formula 1 of Mujica-Fernaud are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 15-57, where Compound 13 on p. 18 has the structure of HTM1 of Mujica-Fernaud.)}.
Formula 1 of Mujica-Fernaud can have deuterium substituents {paragraphs [0013]-[0018]}.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}. Li teaches that the compounds can be fully deuterated {paragraphs [0025] and [0027]-[0028]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Mujica-Fernaud such that the compound of Mujica-Fernaud was fully deuterated, based on the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maximize the number of C-D bonds in order to maximize the thermal stability of the compound to produce a fully deuterated compound, as taught by Li.
In the resultant compound each of a1 and a2 are 4 where R1 and R2 are in each case deuterium.
An organic light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.).
Regarding claim 5: Mujica-Fernaud as modified by Li teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Mujica-Fernaud does not describe that the organic light-emitting device emits blue light.
However, Mujica-Fernaud teaches that the phosphorescent dopant can be and Ir metal complex, including FIrpic {paragraph [0127] and p. 77}.
Mishima teaches that FIrpic is a blue light-emitting phosphorescent dopant {paragraph [0162]}.
Baranoff teaches that FIrpic as a maximum emission wavelength of 475 nm {p. 8323, 1st col., 3rd paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light-emitting device of Mujica-Fernaud such that FIrpic was used as the phosphorescent light-emitting dopant, based on the teaching of Mujica-Fernaud and Mishima. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a blue-light emitting device, as taught by Mishima.
The resultant device would emit blue light from the emission layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 7: Mujica-Fernaud as modified by Li teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Mujica-Fernaud further teaches that the organic light-emitting device of Mujica-Fernaud’s disclosure can be used in a display device {paragraphs [0141]}.
Mujica-Fernaud does not exemplify that the display device is a flat panel display or that the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor.
Kim ‘710 teaches flat panel display comprising organic light-emitting devices as the light-emitting elements {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0060]}.
The display comprises a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0039] [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode, Element 260 is the source electrode, and Element 220-3 is the active layer.}
The first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraph [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode and is in electrical contact with the electrode of the organic light-emitting device, Element 310.}.
Kim ‘710 sought to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield {abstract, paragraph [0019], and [0059]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Mujica-Fernaud by using the device as light-emitting elements of the flat panel display device of Kim ‘710, based on the teachings of Kim ‘710. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield, as taught by Kim ‘710.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”).
Regarding claim 8: Mujica-Fernaud as modified by Li teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Mujica-Fernaud does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Mujica-Fernaud is incorporated into a display device comprising a color filter.
However, Mujica-Fernaud further teaches that the organic light-emitting device of Mujica-Fernaud’s disclosure can be used in a display device {paragraphs [0141]}.
Kim ‘985 teaches a display device comprising a substrate, and on the substrate, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, an organic light emitting device corresponding to each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0044]}. The display device additionally comprising a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions and disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode {paragraphs [0050]-[0052]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Mujica-Fernaud by including the device in the display device structure of Kim ‘985 described above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘985. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) and Hirata et al. (“Relationship between room temperature phosphorescence and deuteration position in a purely aromatic compound”, Chemical Physics Letters, 591 (2014) pp. 119-125.) (hereafter “Hirata”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 12-20: Mujica-Fernaud discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an interlayer containing a light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}.
The interlayer comprises a hole transport region between the light-emitting layer and the anode {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}. The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}. The hole transport layer comprises the compound shown below {(paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3), (p. 103, Compound HTM1; p. 18, Compound 13 has the structure of Compound HTM1)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
700
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The interlayer comprises an electron transport region between the light-emitting layer and the cathode {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}. The electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer and an electron transport layer {paragraph [0172]-[0173] and [0175] as well as Table 2: Device Example E3}.
Compound HTM1 of Mujica-Fernaud does not meet the limitations of the current claims, because both of the instant a1 and 2 in Compound HTM1 of Mujica-Fernaud are 0 while the claims require the sum of a1 and a2 to be at least one.
Compound HTM1 of Mujica-Fernaud has the structure of formula 1 of Mujica-Fernaud {(paragraph [0012]: formula 1), (paragraph [0069]: the compounds having the structure of formula 1 of Mujica-Fernaud are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 15-57, where Compound 13 on p. 18 has the structure of HTM1 of Mujica-Fernaud.)}.
Formula 1 of Mujica-Fernaud can have deuterium substituents {paragraphs [0013]-[0018]}.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}. Li teaches that the compounds can be fully deuterated {paragraphs [0025] and [0027]-[0028]}.
Hirata describes organic compounds for use in optoelectronic devices, including organic electroluminescent devices {abstract; p. 119, 1st col., 1st paragraph}.
Hirata teaches that fully deuterated compounds are expensive {p. 119, 2nd col., 1st paragraph; p. 124, 2nd col., 3rd paragraph}.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to use a partially deuterated compound compared to a fully deuterated compound.
As outlined above, Li teaches that replacing one hydrogen with deuterium would be beneficial.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of by placing replacing a hydrogen with a deuterium at a position equivalent to one of the instant R11 to R14, based on the teaching of Mujica-Fernaud. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. The selection of a position equivalent to one of the instant R11 to R14, would also have been a selection of unsubstituted benzene would have been a selection from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible positions for substitution), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the benefits taught by Li while minimizing costs, as taught by Hirata.
In the resultant compound each of a1 is 1 and a2 is 0 where the instant R1 is deuterium.
An organic light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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 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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights