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
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Formula VI is identical to Formula IV of claim 14. The numbering of the formulas should be adjusted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention of claim 13 is directed to non-statutory subject matter represented as a “USE”. The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because even in the case of a process of preparing an organic electronic device there are not recited steps or definition of how the claimed Formula I is to be incorporated into said device.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites a “USE” of Formula I without any definition of how said material is being used. The metes and bounds for the usage of Formula I is not recited which renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (J. Mater. Chem. C, 2020, 8, 7012—7018).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-8 , Han teaches a material represented by CN-TPB-AD (page 7013):
PNG
media_image1.png
134
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CN-TPB-AD reads on applicants’ Formula 1 wherein A = phenylene; G = diphenyl acridine (azine ring system); R3 = cyano-phenyl; R1 and R2 = Phenyl (per claims 1-3, 5-8).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Han teaches a series of OLEDs one of which contains CN-TPB-AD as an emitter in the emitting material layer (EML).
CN-TPB-AD and CN-TPB-TPA were selected as EMLs to construct 4 non-doped deep blue OLEDs with a configuration of ITO (anode)/HAT-CN (5 nm) (hole injection layer)/TAPC (50 nm) (hole transport layer) /EBLs (5 nm)/emitter (emitting material layer)
(20 nm)/TmPyPB (40 nm) (electron transporting layer)/LiF (1 nm)/Al (cathode)
where ITO, HATCN (1,4,5,8,9,11-hexaazatriphenylenehexacarbonitrile), TAPC (1-bis[4-
[N,N-di(4-tolyl)amino]phenyl]cyclohexane) and TmPyPB (1,3,5-tri[(3-pyridyl)-phen-3-yl]benzene) act as the anode, hole injection, hole-transporting and electron-transporting layers, respectively. 1,3-Bis(N-carbazolyl)benzene (mCP) and 4,40
,400-tri(N-carbazolyl)-triphenylamine (TCTA) were chosen for exciton-blocking layers
(EBLs). The optimized device structure is shown in Fig. 4A, where device B1 has mCP and CN-TPB-AD as the EBL and the EML, respectively (page 7015) (per claims 9-10).
Regarding Claim 12, Han teaches the above OLED can be used in a panel displays (abstract and page 7013) (per claim 12).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han 2 (CN 110105244 A)
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-8, Han2 teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
200
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 9):
CN-TPB-AD reads on applicants’ Formula 1 wherein A = phenylene; G = diphenyl acridine (azine ring system); R3 = cyano-phenyl; R1 and R2 = Phenyl (per claims 1-3, 5-8)
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (J. Mater. Chem. C, 2020, 8, 7012—7018) in view of Han 2 (CN 110105244 A).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Han teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
134
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which reads on applicants’ Formula 1as discussed above. Han fails to mention the process to make said compound.
Han2 teaches a method of making (paragraph 59):
PNG
media_image3.png
204
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Intermediate 7 reads on applicants’ Intermediate V wherein A = phenylene; G = G = diphenyl acridine; Z2 = boronate ester. The above scheme does not show the applicant Intermediate IV; however, said intermediate can be readily envisaged below by another scheme taught by Han 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
208
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above Intermediate 1 is viewed as the starting material for all of the materials taught by Han 2. The above scheme shows that Intermediate 1 can be functionalized by successive Suzuki coupling reactions. A skilled synthetic chemist would attach the R3 (Ph-CN) group with a R3-B(OH)2 to the above Intermediate 1 under Suzuki conditions to form applicants’ Intermediate IV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention for Han to have relied upon the methods taught by Han2 since Han2 teaches an identical material., absent unexpected results.
The office notes the applicants’ Intermediate IV is the same as Intermediate V1 (per claim 15).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han 2 (CN 110105244 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Han2 teaches a method of making
PNG
media_image1.png
134
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(paragraph 59):
PNG
media_image3.png
204
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Intermediate 7 reads on applicants’ Intermediate V wherein A = phenylene; G = G = diphenyl acridine; Z2 = boronate ester. The above scheme does not show the applicants’ Formula IV; however, Formula IV can be readily envisaged below by another scheme taught by Han 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
208
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above Formula 1 is viewed as the starting material for all of the materials taught by Han 2. The above scheme shows that Formula 1 can be functionalized by successive Suzuki coupling reactions. A skilled synthetic chemist would attach the R3 (Ph-CN) group with a R3-B(OH)2 to the above Formula 1 under Suzuki conditions to form applicants’ Formula IV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used components of various schemes taught by Hans2 since said schemes represent building block which would be readily understood as a means to achieve the claimed Formula 1, absent unexpected results.
The office notes the Formula VI is identical to Formula IV (per claim 15).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Hans teaches various schemes involving using intermediates under Suzuki coupling conditions. The intermediates and coupling conditions are viewed as obvious methodologies to assemble molecules readily available to a synthetic chemist before the filing dated of the invention.
Han2 teaches the following schemes (paragraphs 72 and 78):
PNG
media_image5.png
455
764
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The above scheme are viewed as fully analogous Suzuki coupling reactions carried out under identical conditions. A synthetic chemist would note merely exchanging intermediate 12 in place of intermediate 9 results in a material reading on applicants’ Formula I and Formula II as shown below referred to as Hans 72-78:
PNG
media_image6.png
140
244
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The above Hans 72-78 reads on applicants’ Formula 1 wherein A = phenylene; G = diphenyl-triazine; R3 = cyano-phenyl; R1 and R2 = Phenyl
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have utilized the intermediates in the scheme taught by Hans to make various derivatives which would have included Hans 72-78 which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1 and 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 teach to directly or on the basis of inherency:
Formula (I) is an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a hole blocking layer or an electron generating layer (per claim 11).
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