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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yang et al (CN 112480154 A).
Yang discloses OLEDs comprising a host and the claimed compounds, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
85
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[abstract, p9].
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by
Duan et al (CN 113173943 A).
Yang discloses OLEDs comprising a host and the claimed compounds, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
114
133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[abstract, compound 7, 9-11, p7, Examples, paragraph 200]
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kuwabara et al (US 20210175431 A1).
Kuwabara discloses an OLED with an emitting compound and a host compound [abstract, p80, 0112] wherein the emitting compound includes the structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
168
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the host compound includes anthracene groups.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (CN 112480154 A).
The compounds of Yang discussed above are position isomers of the claimed formula (2) with fused dibenzofuran ring facing the other way and attached at different ring positions.
The claimed compounds would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention because the skilled artisan would have expected the claimed and disclosed compounds to have similar and overlapping if not indistinguishable properties based on the structural similarities of the compounds. Case law confirms that a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al (CN 113173943 A).
Similar Yang above, Duan discloses position isomers of the claimed compounds.
The claimed compounds would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention because the skilled artisan would have expected the claimed and disclosed compounds to have similar and overlapping if not indistinguishable properties based on the structural similarities of the compounds.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al (CN 113173943 A) or Yang et al (CN 112480154 A) or Kuwabara et al (US 20210175431 A1) in view of Huang et al (US 20200066997 A1).
The primary references, discussed above, disclose a host material but do not describe it as having a triazine group.
Huang, similar to the primary references, disclose an OLED with a boron BNN emitter material and a host material [abstract, 0027, 0085, 0097] wherein the host material includes triazine groups.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have used a triazine host in the emitting layers of Duan, Yang, and Kuwabara because Huang teaches that light emitting layers of OLEDs suitably include host materials having triazine groups, so the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a triazine based host. Caselaw supports this rationale as it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Relevant Prior Art
Li et al (US 20250255091 A1) discloses the claimed compounds and OLEDs but is not available as prior art under 35 USC 102a.
Hatekayama et al (WO 2019240080 A1) discloses similar compounds having the formula 1 and the fused rings of Formula 1b and 1c:
PNG
media_image4.png
165
266
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
146
306
media_image5.png
Greyscale
with a demonstrative example having the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
154
159
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
This is not the structure of the claims however, because the disclosed ring b corresponds to the claimed ring C, and so the claimed ring A would be attached to the ring C, and there would be no condensed system of 5 aromatic rings.
Thobes et al (US 20200354380 A1) discloses compounds with a substructure of the claimed Formula I, but includes additional condensed rings that are not within the scope of the substituent R1:
PNG
media_image7.png
337
403
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
There would be no motivation to remove the condensed rings and arrive at the claimed smaller structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 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 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights