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 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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on April 2, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on December 22, 2022.
Claims 1 – 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 22, 2022 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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 3, 6, 7, and 15 – 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 7, and 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as not being limited to the options after the “preferably” phrase.
Claims 16 – 18 are rejected as being dependent on claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 defines Ar1 as being selected from the group consisting of formula I, formula II and formula III
PNG
media_image1.png
108
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where
PNG
media_image2.png
40
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. It is clear that the chemical bond of Ar1 to L1 in formula 1 is via one of the atoms of the condensed ring system. Claim 13 defines Ar1 as being selected from
PNG
media_image3.png
98
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in which the bonding of Ar1 to L1 in formula 1 is via an R group. This is seen as outside the scope of formula I, formula II and formula III in claim 1 and therefore claim 13 is interpreted as failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Several of the compounds in claim 14, including at least compounds 409 – 411 contain these groups and are seen as being outside the scope of claim 1 for the same reasons.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US20230111469A1).
As per claims 1 – 12 and 14, Park teaches:
An organic compound with a structure shown in formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
108
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Park teaches compound P20-33
PNG
media_image5.png
276
274
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed formula wherein Ar1 is selected from a group of formula III
PNG
media_image6.png
108
138
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, wherein X is selected from C(R1R2) where R1 and R2 are each an alkyl with 1 carbon atoms, namely a methyl group as required by claim 10 so that the whole Ar1 group is represented by
PNG
media_image7.png
86
80
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 12; n10 and n11 are 0 so that R10 and R11 do not exist; Ar2 is selected from the group consisting of a substituted aryl with 6 carbon atoms, namely a substituted phenyl as required by claim 7 and a substituted W group of
PNG
media_image8.png
52
50
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 8, wherein the substituent is an aryl with 6 carbon atoms, so that the whole Ar2 group is represented by
PNG
media_image9.png
50
70
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 9; L1 and L2 are a single bond. Compound P20-33 is the same as claimed compound 4
PNG
media_image10.png
144
114
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in claim 14.)
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakamoto (US20230012692A1).
As per claims 1 – 12, Sakamoto teaches:
An organic compound with a structure shown in formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
108
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Sakamoto teaches compound 135
PNG
media_image11.png
248
320
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed formula wherein Ar1 is selected from a group of formula I
PNG
media_image12.png
80
162
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein X is O, namely a group of
PNG
media_image13.png
74
90
media_image13.png
Greyscale
in claim 12; n6 and n7 are both 0 so that R6 and R7 do not exist; Ar2 is an unsubstituted aryl with 10 carbons atoms, namely a naphthyl group as required by claim 7,
PNG
media_image14.png
46
68
media_image14.png
Greyscale
in claim 8, and
PNG
media_image15.png
48
72
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in claim 9; L1 is a direct bond and L2 is an unsubstituted arylene with 10 carbon atoms, namely a naphthylene group as required by claim 3,
PNG
media_image16.png
42
90
media_image16.png
Greyscale
in claim 4, and
PNG
media_image17.png
50
76
media_image17.png
Greyscale
in claim 5.)
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. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20230111469A1) as applied to claims 1 – 12 and 14 above.
As per claims 15 – 18, Park does not specifically teach the use of compound P22-33 in a device. Park teaches:
An electronic component comprising an anode, a cathode, and a functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound and the electronic component is an organic light-emitting device ([0047]: “Herein, the organic electronic device may refer to one or more compounds between an anode and a cathode, or an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) including the anode, the cathode, and the one or more compounds positioned between the anode and the cathode.” As an organic light-emitting diode is an electronic device, Park teaches the limitations of claims 17 and 18.)
Park teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Park as Park demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US20230012692A1) as applied to claims 1 – 12 above.
As per claims 15 – 18, Sakamoto does not specifically teach the use of compound 135 in a device. Sakamoto teaches:
An electronic component comprising an anode, a cathode, and a functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound and the electronic component is an organic light-emitting device (Abstract: “A light emitting device includes a first electrode, a second electrode disposed on the first electrode, and at least one functional layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode. The at least one functional layer includes an amine compound represented by Formula 1.” As an organic light-emitting device is an electronic device, Sakamoto teaches the limitations of claims 17 and 18.)
Sakamoto teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Sakamoto as Sakamoto demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 12, and 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US20220416174A1).
As per claims 1 – 12, Uno teaches:
An organic compound with a structure shown in formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
108
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Uno teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image18.png
166
292
media_image18.png
Greyscale
, where one of A1 to A10 is represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image19.png
106
250
media_image19.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ar1-1 is represented by Formula 3-1
PNG
media_image20.png
96
276
media_image20.png
Greyscale
([0006 – 0010]). A specific compound taught by Uno is compound A83
PNG
media_image21.png
206
340
media_image21.png
Greyscale
, which does not contain the phenyl substituent on the naphthyl group as required by the claim. However, the definitions for R2 allows for phenyl substituents and compound C151
PNG
media_image22.png
448
536
media_image22.png
Greyscale
teaches a phenyl substituent in the claimed 8-position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly substitute compound A83 in the 8 position with a phenyl group and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound A83 reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar1 is selected from a group of formula I
PNG
media_image12.png
80
162
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein X is O, namely a group of
PNG
media_image13.png
74
90
media_image13.png
Greyscale
in claim 12; n6 and n7 are both 0 so that R6 and R7 do not exist; Ar2 is an unsubstituted aryl with 10 carbons atoms, namely a naphthyl group as required by claim 7,
PNG
media_image14.png
46
68
media_image14.png
Greyscale
in claim 8, and
PNG
media_image23.png
50
62
media_image23.png
Greyscale
in claim 9; L1 and L2 are both a direct bond.)
Uno includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Uno being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of high emission efficiency, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 15 – 18, Uno teaches:
An electronic component comprising an anode, a cathode, and a functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound and the electronic component is an organic light-emitting device (Abstract: “An organic electroluminescence device includes a first electrode, a hole transport region disposed on the first electrode, an emission layer disposed on the hole transport region, an electron transport region disposed on the emission layer, and a second electrode disposed on the electron transport region, wherein the hole transport region includes a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1, and the device shows high emission efficiency” As an organic light-emitting device is an electronic device, Uno teaches the limitations of claims 17 and 18.)
Uno teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Uno as Uno demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 11, 13, and 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park 2 (US20240018104A1).
As per claims 1 – 11, and 13, Park 2 teaches:
An organic compound with a structure shown in formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
108
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Park 2 teaches compounds represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image24.png
234
326
media_image24.png
Greyscale
([0021]). A specific compound taught by Park 2 is compound P-11
PNG
media_image25.png
278
310
media_image25.png
Greyscale
, which does not contain the benzonaphthocarbazole group claimed. However, the definitions in Formula 1 allow for extended condensed ring systems off of the carbazole group and Park 2 teaches compounds including P-52
PNG
media_image26.png
268
316
media_image26.png
Greyscale
which contains the condensed benzonaphthyl carbazole group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound P-11 to extended the ring system of the carbazole group to make a naphtho group and arrive at the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar1 is selected from the group of formula III
PNG
media_image27.png
104
126
media_image27.png
Greyscale
, wherein X is selected from N(R3) and R3 is an aryl with 6 carbon atoms, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 10 so that the group is represented by
PNG
media_image28.png
90
90
media_image28.png
Greyscale
in claim 13; n10 and n11 are 0 so that R10 and R11 do not exist; Ar2 is a substituted aryl with 10 carbon atoms, wherein the substituent is an aryl with 6 carbon atoms, namely a substituted naphthyl group as required by claim 7, represented by
PNG
media_image29.png
40
62
media_image29.png
Greyscale
in claim 8 and
PNG
media_image30.png
50
58
media_image30.png
Greyscale
in claim 9; L1 and L2 are an unsubstituted arylene with 6 carbon atoms, namely a phenylene as required by claim 3, represented by
PNG
media_image31.png
44
70
media_image31.png
Greyscale
in claim 4 and
PNG
media_image32.png
48
62
media_image32.png
Greyscale
in claim 5.
Park 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Park 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of a compound capable of improving the light-emitting efficiency, stability and lifespan of an element (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 15 – 18, Park 2 teaches:
An electronic component comprising an anode, a cathode, and a functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound and the electronic component is an organic light-emitting device ([0088]: “Also, the present invention provides an organic electronic element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer formed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic material layer comprises a hole transport layer; an emitting layer; and an emitting auxiliary layer formed between the hole transport layer and the emitting layer; wherein the emitting auxiliary layer comprises the compound represented by Formula 1.” As an organic light-emitting diode is an electronic device, Park 2 teaches the limitations of claims 17 and 18.)
Park 2 teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Park 2 as Park 2 demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20230172066A1 and US20230013038A1 teach amine-based compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. The ‘006 and ‘038 references are eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) and 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789