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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is only one drawing, and it cannot have a label. See CFR 1.84(u). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: As discussed above, the sole drawing cannot have a label. The specification therefore cannot refer to “Fig. 1.” Instead, references to the sole drawing must be read “the Figure.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 are 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.
Regarding claim 1: The definitions for the substituent variables R1 to R5 are unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
None of the limitations appear to describe the types of substituents that each of R1 to R5 can be in cases where one or more of them are not one of the conditions described in lines 6-14. This issue arises because a donor group that is a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon cyclic group or a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic heterocyclic group containing a nitrogen atom as a ring skeleton atom that meet the conditions of lines 9-14 of the claim are also a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon cyclic group or a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic heterocyclic group containing a nitrogen atom as a ring skeleton atom that meet the conditions of lines 6-8 of the claim. In this case, two of R1 to R5 remain undefined, rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that R1 to R5 can be any other substituent once the conditions of lines 6-14 of the claim are met.
Regarding claims 2-16: Claims 2-16 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (WO 2018/237389 A1) in view of Lee et al. (“Benzofurocarbazole and benzothienocarbazole as donors for improved quantum efficiency in blue thermally activated delayed fluorescent devices”, Chemical Communication, 2015, 51, pp. 8105-8107.) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-14: Cheng discloses the compounds shown below {(p. 10, lines 16-17: The compounds of the disclosure of Cheng have the structure of Formula (I) of Cheng.), (The compounds on pp. 36, 86, and 87)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
588
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
386
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cheng does not teach that the compounds comprise a carbazolyl-9-yl group condensed with a benzofuran ring.
However, Lee teaches compounds for use as light emitting compounds in organic light emitting devices {abstract; p. 8105, col. 1, paragraphs 1 and 2; p. 8107, 2nd col., 1st paragraph}.
Lee teaches that compounds that replace unsubstituted 9-carbazolyl groups with the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
had higher quantum yields {p. 8106, 2nd col., 1st paragraph} and allowed for devices with higher efficiency {p. 8107, 2nd col., 1st paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified each of the compounds of Cheng shown above by replacing the unsubstituted carbazolyl groups with the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Lee, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the quantum yields of the compounds and allow for devices with higher efficiency, as taught by Cheng.
It is noted that both a carbazole group and the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is an aromatic heterocyclic group containing a nitrogen atom as a ring skeleton constituting atom. The claim limitations do not limit what other heteroatoms can be present.
Furthermore, each of carbazole,
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and benzothio fused carbazolyl groups are donor groups.
In each case two of R1 to R5 are a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group containing a nitrogen atom as a ring skeleton constituting atom.
In each case two of R1 to R5 are the same as each other.
The compounds are useful as light emitting materials {Cheng: p. 10, lines 1-2; p. 90, line 5 through p. 91, line 2}.
Regarding claims 4: Cheng teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
As described above, the compounds of Cheng shown below is modified be replacing the unsubstituted carbazolyl groups with the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Lee.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
588
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The resultant compound in each case would have two of three donor groups the same as each other.
The resultant compound in each case would also comprise two of R1 to R5 as unsubstituted phenyl.
Regarding claim 8: Cheng teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
As described above, the compound of Cheng shown below is modified be replacing the unsubstituted carbazolyl groups with the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Lee.
PNG
media_image2.png
378
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The resultant compound would have exactly two carbazolyl groups condensed with benzofuran.
Regarding claim 9: Cheng teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
As described above, the compound of Cheng shown below is modified be replacing the unsubstituted carbazolyl groups with the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Lee.
PNG
media_image3.png
588
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The resultant compound would have exactly one carbazolyl group condensed with benzofuran.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 10-16: Cheng discloses a light emitting device having a light emitting layer and the light emitting layer contains the compound shown below as a light emitting material that mainly emits light in addition to a host material {p. 123, lines 4-18 and the Tables on p. 124: The device comprising Compound 1.}.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cheng does not teach that the compounds comprise a carbazolyl-9-yl group condensed with a benzofuran ring.
However, Lee teaches compounds for use as light emitting compounds in organic light emitting devices {abstract; p. 8105, col. 1, paragraphs 1 and 2; p. 8107, 2nd col., 1st paragraph}.
Lee teaches that compounds that replace unsubstituted 9-carbazolyl groups with the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
had higher quantum yields {p. 8106, 2nd col., 1st paragraph} and allowed for devices with higher efficiency {p. 8107, 2nd col., 1st paragraph}.
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 Cheng shown above by replacing the unsubstituted carbazolyl groups with the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Lee, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the quantum yields of the compounds and allow for devices with higher efficiency, as taught by Cheng.
It is noted that both a carbazole group and the group
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is an aromatic heterocyclic group containing a nitrogen atom as a ring skeleton constituting atom. The claim limitations do not limit what other heteroatoms can be present.
Furthermore
PNG
media_image5.png
314
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is a donor groups.
Two of R1 to R5 are a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group containing a nitrogen atom as a ring skeleton constituting atom.
Two of R1 to R5 are the same as each other.
The compounds are useful as light emitting materials {Cheng: p. 10, lines 1-2; p. 90, line 5 through p. 91, line 2}.
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