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 .
DETAILED 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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14 use the term “optionally” which renders the claim scope indefinite as it fails to clearly define the boundary between that is and is not included. This term creates ambiguity about whether the optional feature is essential to the invention. To overcome these rejections, it is suggested to amend “optionally, substituents in L1” to “optional substituents in L1” for claims 2 and 3 and to amend “optionally, substituents in Ar1” to “optional substituents in Ar1” for claims 6 and 7. For claim 12, it is suggested to amend “or R5 and R6 are optionally connected” to “or R5 and R6 are connected”. For claims 14 and 15, the Examiner suggests removing the optional portion of claims 14 and 15 or to make said optional language required. Claim 16 is included with this rejection as it is dependent on claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, and 13 are allowed. Additionally, claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 14-16 contain allowable subject matter pending the withdrawal of the 112(b) rejections above. Some relevant prior art teachings are as follows: Hong et al. (WO 2020/091446) teaches organic electroluminescent compounds and electroluminescent devices comprising the same. One explicitly taught compound is compound 214 which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
234
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 24). This compound satisfies all of the limitations of chemical formula 1 with the key exception that one R1 group is bonded to an adjacent R2 group to form a benzene ring. This difference is shown in the oval in the structure above. Hong et al. requires that all of the compounds taught therein include this ring. Independent claim 1 does not permit any adjacent pair of substituents R1-R4 to be joined to form a ring.
A closely related prior art teaching is Park et al. (WO 2020/262853, cited on Applicants 12/23/22 information disclosure statement). Park et al. teaches compounds of formula 1 as taught therein where variable X is taught as being equal to O or S. Park et al. additionally teaches compounds which include a group satisfying chemical formula 2 such as compound P-46 which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
126
84
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This compound satisfies all of the limitations of chemical formula 1 and chemical formula 2 with the key exception that no CR5R6 group is present. There is nothing taught or suggested in Park et al. to employ anything other than an oxygen or sulfur atom at the position which corresponds to CR5R6 of independent claim 1. Additionally, replacing a dibenzofuran moiety or a dibenzothiophene moiety (all compounds taught by Park et al. comprise such moieties) with a fluorene moiety would not necessarily be expected to result in compounds which display the same properties as the ones taught by the Park et al. Fluorene groups are generally more electron rich compounds and possesses different HOMO/LUMO levels compared to dibenzothiophene groups and dibenzofuran groups. The replacement could negatively affect the charge transport balance in the phosphorescent OLEDs taught by the Park et al.
The prior art references to Kim et al. (US 2021/0265569), Kim et al. (US 2021/0253586), Lee et al. (US 2021/0151693), Kim et al. (US 2021/0028369) and Kim et al. (US 2021/0020849), which are cited on Applicants 12/23/22 information disclosure statement, all teach compounds which satisfy all of the limitations of chemical formula 1 and chemical formula 2 of claim 1 with the key exception that an N-Ar group is present at the position which corresponds to the CR5R6 group of independent claim 1. None of these five references teach or suggest anything other than an N-Ar group at this position. It is deemed that only through improper hindsight reconstruction would a person having ordinary skill in the art look to modify the compounds taught by these five references in a very specific manner (changing the N-Ar group to a CR5R6 group).
Mu et al. (CN-110128323) teaches compounds such as
PNG
media_image3.png
128
88
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 3). This compound satisfies all of the structural limitations of chemical formula 1 and chemical formula 2 of claim 1 with the key difference being that the phenyl group bonded to the nitrogen atom of the five-membered ring system is not joined to said five-membered ring system at the benzene ring furthest from the nitrogen ring. Copies of the original of Mu et al. and a machine translation are included with this Office action.
Moon et al. (US 10,636,980, cited on Applicants 12/23/22 information disclosure statement) teaches that including a single bond between an N-phenyl carbon atom and a carbon atom present in the indolocarbazole group reduces steric hindrance. Moon et al. teaches at 167:29-44 that such compounds can have reduced driving voltages (although there is no experimental data presented by Moon et al. which can speak to this point). The Examiner determined whether the teachings of Moon et al. could be applied to a prior art teaching which teaches compounds which are analogous to the compounds of Moon et al. but otherwise have a CR5R6 group instead of an N-Ar group. This includes prior art teachings such as Mu et al. However, the compounds taught by Moon et al. are electron transporting compounds due to the inclusion or electron withdrawing triazine groups. The end use of the compounds taught by Moon et al. and that of Mu et al. are different (the use as electron transporting materials by Moon et al. compared to the use as hole transporting materials by Mu et al.). For these reasons, the combination of Moon et al. and Mu et al. in a potential obviousness type rejection against the instantly filed claims was not made.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766