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 .
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 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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2016/03518167) (Kim) in view of Yoon et al (US 20190305227) (Yoon).
In reference to claims 1-5, Kim teaches compounds of the formula 1 as shown below (Kim [0050]
PNG
media_image1.png
266
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
40
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
92
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
84
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 1, R11 to R18 are each deuterium (Kim [0051]), R19 is a group of formula 1E and R20 is a group of formula 1A as shown above (Kim [0051] [0054]), wherein in the formula 1A, a101 is 1 (Kim [0102]), L101 is formula 3-1 as shown above (Kim [0091]), X11 and X12 are each O (Kim [0073]), and A11, A12 and A13 are each benzene (Kim [0081]; as in compound H122, Kim p 63) and in the formula 1E a102 is 0 (Kim [0102]), R108 is formula 5-1 (Kim [0137]) .
Kim discloses the compound of formula 1 that encompasses the presently claimed compounds, including wherein in the formula 1, R11 to R18 are each deuterium, R19 is a group of formula 1E and R20 is a group of formula 1A as shown above, wherein in the formula 1A, a101 is 1, L101 is formula 3-1 as shown above, X11 and X12 are each O, and A11, A12 and A13 are each benzene and in the formula 1E a102 is 0, R108 is formula 5-1. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Kim does not expressly teach that the deuterium atoms are preferred on the anthracene group as instantly claimed. With respect to the difference, Yoon teaches anthracene compounds with aryl and dibenzofuran substituents that optionally include additional ring fusions as those disclosed by Kim or instantly claimed (Yoon abstract, [0015]). Kim further teaches that deuteration of the anthracene group results in improvements in device lifetime as evidenced therein (Yoon Table 1, [0153]).
In light of the motivation of using deuterated anthracene as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the deuterated anthracene as described by Yoon in order to improve device lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1 wherein a1 is 8, each of R1 to R8 is hydrogen, L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group and Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula 1-2.
For Claim 3: Reads on formula 1-3.
For Claim 4: Reads on L1 is phenylene and Ar1 is phenyl.
For Claim 5: Reads on the second compound.
In reference to claims 6-11, Kim in view of Yoon teaches the device as described above and further teaches that it is used in an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and an organic layer between them and wherein the organic layer includes the compound as a host compound and a fluorescent dopant of formula 2, which is an arylamine-based compound and that this configuration leads to improved thermal stability, lower driving voltage and higher efficiency (Kim abstract).
While Kim does not exemplify this material in this configuration of a device, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have selected a known device configuration from those taught by Kim to use the compound of Kim with the anticipation of proving a device with improved stability, lower driving voltage and higher efficiency.
With respect to claim 7 and 8, while the ‘organic layer’ of Kim in view of Yoon is not given the same name as those claimed, the name of the layer does not change its position relative to other layers as claimed nor its composition and the organic layer of Kim meets all structural and compositional requirements for the claimed layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, as amended, the instant claims require 8 deuterium atoms specifically as substituents on the central anthracene group and that deuteration at these positions rather than other deuteration positions gives rise to improvements in device service lifetime (LT 95).
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in device lifetime, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, the results appear to be expected based on the prior art of record. As set forth above herein, Yoon teaches that deuteration of anthracene gives rise to an improvement in device lifetimes (LT 95) when compared to deuteration at other positions on similar compounds. The magnitude of the improvement appears to be essentially identical. Taken together, the effect that Applicant claims is unexpected appears to be what would be anticipated based on the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights