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.
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) 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO 2014/030921 A1) (hereafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 1-12 and 17: Ahn discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0035]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ahn are exemplified by the compounds in paragraphs [0036]-[0039]), (paragraph [0039]: Compound C-57)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above does not read on the current claims, because the structures that can be equated with both of the instant L1 and L2 are single bonds, and the claims require at least one of the instant L1 and L2 to be other than a single bond.
However, Ahn teaches that the compounds of Ahn have the structure of formula 1 of Ahn, shown below {paragraphs [0013]-[0014]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where L3 of Ahn can optionally be substituted or unsubstituted arylene {paragraph [0017]}.
This is exemplified by compounds C-59 to C-69, C-71 to C-74, C-77 to C-81, C-83 to C-85, C-87 to C-96, C-98 to C-100, C-102, and C-105 of Ahn where L3 of Ahn is paraphenylene {paragraphs [0038] to [0039]}.
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 C-57 of Ahn by substituting a p-phenylene group in place of a single bond that is L3 of Ahn, based on the teaching of Ahn. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of p-phenylene would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups L3 of Ahn), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of chemical moieties and chemical moiety positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 19-20: Ahn teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Ahn does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Ahn described above.
However, Ahn teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Ahn are useful as materials of a hole transport layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0044]-[0047], and [0113]}.
Furthermore, Ahn teaches an organic electroluminescence device having a structure of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode {paragraph [0163]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Ahn such that it was used as the material of the hole transport layer of the device of Ahn described above, based on the teaching of Ahn. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
An organic electroluminescence device is an electronic device.
Regarding claim 20: Ahn teaches all of the features with respect to claim 15, as outlined above.
In the device of Ahn described above, the hole injection layer can be equated with a first hole transport layer that is closer to the anode. This is because the hole injection layer must necessarily transport holes. The layer labeled by Ahn as the hole transport layer can be equated with a second hole transport layer that is further from the anode than the first hole transport layer.
Regarding claim 18: Ahn teaches all of the features with respect to claim 10, as outlined above.
The modified compound C-57 of Ahn does not comprise a biphenylene linking group between the carbazolyl group and the amine N atom.
However, Ahn teaches that the compounds of Ahn have the structure of formula 1 of Ahn, shown below {paragraphs [0013]-[0014]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where L1 and L2 of Ahn can optionally be substituted or unsubstituted arylene {paragraphs [0016]-[0017]}.
This is exemplified by compounds C-22, C-26, and C-81 of Ahn where L1 of Ahn is an m-phenylene group and L2 of Ahn is a p-phenylene group {paragraphs [0037] to [0039]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound C-57 of Ahn by substituting an m-phenylene group in place of the p-phenylene group as L1 of Ahn and a p-phenylene group in place of a single bond as L2 of Ahn, based on the teaching of Ahn. The substitutions would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of m-phenylene and p-phenylene would have been choices from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups L1 and L2 of Ahn), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of chemical moieties and chemical moiety positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO 2014/030921 A1) (hereafter “Ahn”) in view of Kamatani et al. (US 2003/0189216 A1) (hereafter “Kamatani”).
Regarding claims 1-13 and 17: Ahn discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0035]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ahn are exemplified by the compounds in paragraphs [0036]-[0039]), (paragraph [0039]: Compound C-59)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
268
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above does not read on the current claim 11, because the carbazolyl group lacks a fluorine substituent and a structure that can be equated with the instant -L-Ar that is consistent with a compound of the current claim 11.
However, Ahn teaches that the compounds of Ahn have the structure of formula 1 of Ahn, shown below {paragraphs [0013]-[0014]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where Ar1 of Ahn can optionally be substituted or unsubstituted aryl {paragraph [0018]}.
This is exemplified by compounds C-16, C-25, C-27, C-36, C-54, C-69, C-72, C-74, C-81, and C-85 of Ahn where Ar1 of Ahn is biphenyl with a p-phenylene group {paragraphs [0036] to [0039]}.
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 C-59 of Ahn by substituting a biphenyl group comprising p-phenylene group in place of the phenyl group on the amine N atom, based on the teaching of Ahn. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of a biphenyl group comprising a p-phenylene would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups L3 of Ahn), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of chemical moieties and chemical moiety positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
The modified compound C-59 of Ahn does not have the structure of the current claims, because it lacks a fluorine substituent on the carbazolyl group.
However, Ahn teaches that the compounds of Ahn have the structure of formula 1 of Ahn, shown below {paragraphs [0013]-[0014]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where R1 or R2 of Ahn can be fluorine {paragraph [0019]}.
This is exemplified by compound C-57 of Ahn {paragraph [0038]}.
Furthermore, Kamatani teaches that fluorine substituents allow for easier sublimation and for improved stability {paragraphs [0044]-[0046]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound C-59 of Ahn by substituting a fluorine group at a position equivalent to that in the instant Compound 30, based on the teaching of Ahn and Kamatani. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound having the properties of easier sublimation and improved stability, as taught by Kamatani. The selection of the position for the fluorine substitution would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified possible positions for substitution on the compound of Ahn), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of chemical moieties and chemical moiety positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
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