DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The print quality of the chemical structures in the claims is insufficient. The office strongly suggest redrawing all of the structures to avoid potential delays in prosecution in the future. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (JP 2020-147563).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 15-16, 18, Hatakeyama teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a pair of electrodes consisting of an anode and a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the pair of electrodes and containing the polycyclic aromatic compound (corresponding to applicants’ Formula 1, defined below) wherein the organic layer is a light emitting layer (machine trans. paragraphs 32-33). The light emitting layer further contains Formula H1 (carbazole derivative) (corresponding applicants’ second compound) (machine trans. paragraph 34).
The polycyclic aromatic compound can be represented by 1-811 (page 81).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1-811 reads on applicants’ Formula 1, 2-1, and 3 wherein X1- X4 = NRc, Rc = phenyl; Y1 = N; Y2-Y4 = C-H; Z1 = N; Z2-Z4 = C-H; X1 = C-H; R1 and R7 = diphenylamine; R2-R6 = C-H. 1-811 differs from applicants’ Formula 1 in that Y1 and Z1 cannot be the same.
1-811 above is derived from generic 1A (machine trans. paragraph 101):
PNG
media_image2.png
286
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1A shows Y6 which corresponds to Y1 and Z1 in applicants’ Formula 1. Hatakeyama’s 1-811 shows applicants’ Y1 and Z1 = N.
Focusing on Y6 in generic 1A, Hatakeyama teaches:
Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5 and Y6 are each independently ═ C (- R) - or ═ N -, at least one of which is ═ N – (machine trans. paragraph 12). Each R in the ═ C (-R) - is independently hydrogen, aryl, heteroaryl, diarylamino, diheteroarylamino, arylheteroarylamino, diarylboryl (two aryls may be bonded via a single bond or a linking group) (machine trans. paragraph 12).
X1 and X2 are each independently> N-R(amine nitrogen atom),> O,> C (- R) 2,> S or> Se, provided that X1 and X2 are not both> C (- R) 2. Among these,> N-R,> O, or> C (- R) 2 is preferable, and> N-R or> O is more preferable. Particularly preferably, both X1 and X2 are> N-R or> O, most preferably both X1 and X2 are> N-R (machine trans. paragraph 95).
Hatakeyama teaches a finite set of options for Y6 is independently selected. The office views said options as functionally equivalent options whereby upon selection gives rise to obvious variants of generic 1A, absent unexpected results.
One such variant reading on applicants’ Formula 1 and 2-1 is best viewed as a modification of 1-811 wherein Y6 (Y1 and Z1 in applicants’ Formula 1) in generic 1A is represented a N-phenyl on the left side of the line of demarcation (shown below) and Y6 (Z1 in applicants’ Formula 1) is represented by O right side of the line of demarcation (shown below):
PNG
media_image3.png
322
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification of 1-811 is shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
230
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification of 1-811 reads on applicants’ Formula 1 and 2-1 wherein X1 = N-phenyl; X1-X4 = N-phenyl; Y1= N; Y2-Y4 = CH; Z1 =CH; Z2-Z4 = CH; W1 = CH; R1 and R7 = diphenylamine; R2 and R6 = H.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of generic 1a by selecting various functional equivalent substituents of Y6 which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-2, 15-16 and 18).
The above modification of 1-811 shows two different faces with respect to Y1 (N-phenyl) and Z1 (CH). This meets the following limitation
PNG
media_image5.png
193
836
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(per claim 3).
Regarding Claims 4-6, 17, 19, Hatakeyama teaches 1-811 above is derived from generic 1A (machine trans. paragraph 101):
PNG
media_image2.png
286
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1A shows Y6 which corresponds to Y1 and Z1 in applicants’ Formula 1. Hatakeyama’s 1-811 shows applicants’ Y1 and Z1 = N.
Focusing on Y6 in generic 1A, Hatakeyama teaches Y6 has the same definition Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5 and Y6 are each independently ═ C (- R) - or ═ N -, at least one of which is ═ N -;
Each R in the ═ C (-R) - is independently hydrogen, aryl, heteroaryl, diarylamino, diheteroarylamino, arylheteroarylamino, diarylboryl (two aryls may be bonded via a single bond or a linking group), (machine trans. paragraph 12).
Hatakeyama teaches a finite set of options for Y6 is independently selected and viewed as functionally equivalent options whereby upon selection give rise to obvious variants of generic 1A, absent unexpected results.
One such variant reading on Formula 1 and 2-1 is best viewed as a modification of 1-811 wherein Y6 (Y1 in applicants’ Formula 1) in generic 1A is represented a N on the left side of the line of demarcation (shown below) and Y6 ( Z1 in applicants’ Formula 1) in generic 1A is represented a C on the right side of the line of demarcation (shown below):
PNG
media_image3.png
322
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification of 1-811 is shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
230
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification of 1-811 reads on applicants’ Formula 1 and 2-1 wherein X1 = CH2; X2-X4 = N-phenyl; Y1= N; Y2-Y4 = CH; Z1 =C; Z2-Z4 = CH; W1 = CH; R1 and R7 = diphenylamine; R2 and R6 = H, as discussed above.
Hatakeyama teaches X1 and X2 are each independently> N-R(amine nitrogen atom),> O,> C (- R) 2,> S or> Se, provided that X1 and X2 are not both> C (- R) 2. Among these,> N-R,> O, or> C (- R) 2 is preferable, and> N-R or> O is more preferable. Particularly preferably, both X1 and X2 are> N-R or> O, most preferably both X1 and X2 are> N-R (machine trans. paragraph 95).
Hatakeyama teaches a finite set of options for X1 and X2 is independently selected. The office views said options as functionally equivalent options whereby upon selection give rise to obvious variants of generic 1A, absent unexpected results.
A further modification of 1-811 which reads on the limitations of claims 4 and 5 wherein X1-X3 = N-phenyl; X4 = CH2; Y1= N; Y2-Y4 = CH; Z1-Z4 = CH; W1 = CH; R1 and R7 = diphenylamine; R2 and R6 = H (below):
PNG
media_image6.png
246
409
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The above obvious variant of generic 1A shows X1 (N-phenyl) and X4 (CH2) differ as required by claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of generic 1a by selecting various functional equivalent substituents of Y6 which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 4-5).
A further modification of 1-811 which reads on the limitations of claim 6 and Formula 4 wherein X1 and X2 = N-phenyl; X3 and X4 = CH2; Y1= N; Y2-Y4 = CH; Z1 =C; Z2-Z4 = CH; W1 = CH; R1 and R7 = diphenylamine; R2 and R6 = H (below):
PNG
media_image7.png
264
416
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The above obvious variant of generic 1A shows X2 (N-phenyl) and X3 (CH2) differ as required by claims 6 and 19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of generic 1a by selecting various functional equivalent substituents of X2 and X3 which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 6-7, 19). This meets the following limitation
PNG
media_image5.png
193
836
media_image5.png
Greyscale
X1 (N-phenyl) and X4 (CH2) differ and X2 (N) and X3 (CH2) differ (per claim per claim 17).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Hatakeyama teaches the organic electroluminescent device can emit a blue color fluorescent dopant or a TADF dopant (machine trans. paragraph 503) (per claims 8-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to show:
Compounds HT-1 to HT-4 (per claim 10)
Compounds ET-1-ET-3 (per claim 11)
The fourth compound Formula M-b (per claim 12)
Compound is a light emitting dopant, the second compound is a hole transport host, the third compound is an electron transport host, and the fourth compound is an auxiliary dopant (per claim 13)
Compounds (per claims 14 and 20)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786