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 § 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 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20170126081) (Kim).
In reference to claims 1-6, Kim teaches a compound of formula 1 as shown below (Kim [0029] to [0032]).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
108
118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
144
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For example, wherein in the formula 1, X1 is O, R1 and R3 to R10 are each hydrogen, R2 is a group of formula 2, a1 is 1, L1 is a group of formula 3-42 as shown above, Z1 is phenyl and Ar1 is a group 6-1 (Kim [0011] to [0014] [0037] [0045] [0077]).
Kim discloses the compound of formula 1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein X1 is O, R1 and R3 to R10 are each hydrogen, R2 is a group of formula 2, a1 is 1, L1 is a group of formula 3-42 as shown above, Z1 is phenyl and Ar1 is a group 6-1. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 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 of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on wherein X1 is O, R1 and R3 to R10 are each hydrogen, R2 is a group of formula a, L1 is a bond, Z1 to Z3 are each N, L2 and L3 are each a bond, and Ar1 and Ar2 are each phenyl.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula 1-2.
For Claim 3: Reads on a bond.
For Claim 4: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 5: Reads on the first group.
For Claim 6: Reads on compound 7.
In reference to claims 11 to 13, Kim teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that it is preferably used in an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer comprising the compound of formula 1 in a concentration larger than that of the dopant (Kim [0119]; claim 20) that is used in a display device (Kim [0025]).
While Kim does not recite that the compound is a “host”, the naming of the material of Kim as a “host” does not change the structure of the device and therefore the device of Kim reads on the instantly claimed device.
While Kim does not exemplify a device with this exact material and configuration, it would have been obvious to have used the material described by Kim in a configuration describe by Kim with the anticipation of providing a device with similar operational characteristics to those exemplified therein.
For Claims 11 to 13: Reads on a device as claimed.
In reference to claims 7-10 and 14-16, Kim teaches the device as described above for claims 11 to 13. Kim further teaches that the emitting layer can include a host compound defined by formula 301 as shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
232
820
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For example, wherein in the formula 301, A301 is naphthalene, A302 is benzene, xb22 and xb23 are each 0, xb1 is 0, R301 is aryl, R312 is hydrogen and R311 is N(Q31)(Q32), Q31 and Q32 are each aryl (Kim [0243] to [0251]; [0024]).
Kim discloses the host compound 301-1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula 301, A301 is naphthalene, A302 is benzene, xb22 and xb23 are each 0, xb1 is 0, R301 is aryl, R312 is hydrogen and R311 is N(Q31)(Q32), Q31 and Q32 are each aryl. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 301-1.
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 of formula 301-1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Kim does not exemplify a device with this exact configuration, it would have been obvious to have used the material described by Kim in a configuration describe by Kim with the anticipation of providing a device with similar operational characteristics to those exemplified therein.
For Claim 7: The light emitting layer reads on a composition wherein the compound of formula 1 is the first compound and the host compound of formula 301-1 is the second compound wherein A is the second group, X is NRb, Rb is aryl, R11 to R14 are hydrogen, one of R15 to R 22 is formula b, each L4 to L6 is a bond, Ar3 and Ar4 are aryl.
For Claim 8: Reads on formula 2-IV.
For Claim 9: Reads on formula 2-IVB
Foor Claim 10: Reads on formula 2-IVB-2.
For Claims 14 to 16: Reads on the claimed device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Kim (KR 20170126081), Applicant first argues that the prior art fails to exemplify a compound of the claims and that the rejection relies upon arbitrary selections of substituents from generic formula 1 of the Kim reference and that such arbitrary selection does not constitute a prima facie finding of obviousness. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing.
Initially, for a rejection under 35 USC 103, the presence of an example compound that meets the claim requirements is not required. Further, findings of obviousness of a subgenus over a broader genus from the prior art is highly fact dependent for each case. In this application, the compounds are applied in an organic electronic device which is a relatively highly controlled environment wherein the effects of substituents on critical parameters (i.e. HOMO, LUMO, etc) can be readily estimated using well known tools available to the ordinarily skilled artisan (e.g. DFT calculations). Further, the ordinarily skilled artisan would expect (based on the teachings of the prior art) that compounds with a similar structure have similar functional capacity when applied in an organic electronic device (such substituents are taught as alternatives). Taken together, in the absence of unexpected results, the ordinarily skilled artisan in the art area of organic electronics would anticipate that the selection of preferred substituents from among those disclosed by Kim at each position would give rise to comparably functional materials in an organic electronic device. Such a selection might be less obvious if the materials were applied to an alternative technology, for example pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals or biotechnology wherein the materials application inherently requires introduction into an uncontrolled and unknown environment wherein small functional group differences can have highly unpredictable effects. Finally, the recited case law (In re Baird, Merck & Co v. Biocraft Laborotories) each concern a single species being nonobvious over a broad genus whereas none of the instant claims are drawn to a single species. The arrival at any one compound of the instant claims requires a similar number of ‘arbitrary’ selections from among a genus of an essentially infinite number of members.
Applicant argues next that in cases involving new chemical compounds, it remains necessary to identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound and that such rationale is not provided. This argument is not convincing. The instant compounds are not new, they are disclosed by Kim et al by way of Markush groups. No modification of the chemicals disclosed by Kim is required to arrive at those instantly claimed. Kim merely does not discretely draw these compounds as examples. Applicant’s disclosure and claims are also drawn to an essentially infinite number of compounds whereas only a few examples are exemplified.
Next, Applicant argues that the instantly claimed devices give rise to unexpected results as demonstrated in table 2 of the instant specification. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in efficiency and device lifetime, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, compounds of claim 1 include such broad substituent options such as R1 to R10 being H, D, halogen, hydroxy group, cyano group, nitro group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C30 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C30 heterocyclic group whereas all examples include only hydrogen and a single group of formula a. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming many orders of magnitude of more compounds and even more devices. As Applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by Kim, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights