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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0000318, filed on 01/04/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/31/2023 and 06/26/2024 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 05/26/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the preliminary amendment filed 05/26/2023, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-10 were originally filed.
Claim 11 has been added.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-10 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 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.
With respect to claim 8, the claim contains embodiments of parent Chemical Formula 1 that do not include the limitations that at least one R1 is N(Ar1)(Ar2) and the rest of R1 are R2, at least one R2 is benzofuranyl, dibenzofuranyl, benzothiophenyl, or dibenzothiophenyl, and Ar1 and Ar2 are each an aryl substituted by R2 or a heteroaryl substituted with R2.
These include the embodiments below wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group, Ar2 is an unsubstituted a heteroaryl group, and no moiety wherein at least one R2 is benzofuranyl, dibenzofuranyl, benzothiophenyl, or dibenzothiophenyl is present.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
244
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 § 103
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.
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 Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 4-6, Hatakeyama discloses Compound (1-1157) (page 67) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
468
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Hatakeyama general formula (2) (paragraph 0024), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
326
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In general formula (2), Hatakeyama also teaches that R2 is an alkyl (methyl) group (paragraph 0025, lines 1-2), R9 is a diarylamino (diphenylamine) group (paragraph 0025, line 3, Compound 1-176 on page 30), and when X1 is N-R, and the aryl group of R is substituted (paragraph 0056, line 3), the substituent may be a heteroaryl group (paragraph 0063, lines 3-4), such as benzofuran (paragraph 0062, line 14, Compounds 1-125 and 1-129 on page 26).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when one of R1 is diphenyl amine (Ar1 and Ar2 are a C6 aryl, phenyl), and the rest are R2, two of the remaining R2 are a C1 alkyl (methyl), another of the remaining R2 is a benzofuran, the rest of R2 are not present, and R3 is a C1 alkyl (methyl).
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned organic moieties being in each respective location. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 each known substituent from the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a polycyclic aromatic compound in which aromatic rings are linked via a heteroelement such as boron, which has a large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy (paragraph 0046, lines 1-5), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 3, Hatakeyama teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hatakeyama also teaches that the polycyclic compound may be partially or fully deuterated (paragraph 0076).
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim when Ar1 and Ar2 are each a phenyl substituted by R2 and R2 is deuterium.
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned organic moieties being in each respective location. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 each known substituent from the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a polycyclic aromatic compound in which aromatic rings are linked via a heteroelement such as boron, which has a large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy (paragraph 0046, lines 1-5), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 7, Hatakeyama teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is represented by instant Chemical Formula 2 for the reasons described above.
With respect to claim 8, Hatakeyama teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hatakeyama also teaches that examples of suitable alkyl groups include t-butyl (paragraph 0065, line 2), and that the diarylamino group of R9 may instead be present at R10 (paragraph 0025, line 3, Compound 1-176 on page 30, see also MPEP 2144.09 II).
Such a modification produces the instant first compound on line 4 of page 7 of the instant claims, pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
352
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned organic moieties being in each respective location. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 each known substituent from the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a polycyclic aromatic compound in which aromatic rings are linked via a heteroelement such as boron, which has a large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy (paragraph 0046, lines 1-5), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 9-11, Hatakeyama teaches the compound of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the compound should be used as a dopant (paragraph 0119) in the light emitting layer of the organic layer of an organic light emitting device and the organic layer is comprised between a first and second electrode (paragraphs 0550 and 0583).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Hatakeyama as a dopant in the light emitting layer in the organic layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1) – teaches substitution of dibenzofuran/dibenzothiophene/benzofuran/benzothiophene (paragraph 0013)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights