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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0069182 A1) (hereafter “Hakakeyama”).
Regarding claim 1: Hatakeyama discloses the organic molecule shown below {p. 209}.
PNG
media_image1.png
782
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama does not exemplify a similar compound in which the circled phenyl groups are instead a single phenyl group that is substituent of each of the N atoms, forming a fused ring.
However, Hatakeyama teaches that the compounds of Hatakeyama have the structures shown below {paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0057]-[0058] and [0090]-[0093]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
264
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
564
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where formula (2-4) of Hatakeyama represents formula (1) of Hatakeyama where one of rings A, B, or C represent another structure having the structure of formula (1) {paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0020], [0037], [0057], and [0090]-[0093]}.
Hatakeyama teaches that the groups X1 and X2 can be N-R where the R substituent can fuse with adjacent rings, forming a ring {paragraphs [0018] and [0025]}.
As illustrated by the structure of compound 1-2022, the groups X1 and X2 that can be N-R can have R that is substituted phenyl.
Hatakeyama teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Hatakeyama that the compounds of Hatakeyama have beneficial properties when used as materials for organic light-emitting devices {paragraph [0053] and [0384]}. Hatakeyama teaches that increasing the options for compounds to be used in organic light emitting devices is beneficial {paragraph [0384]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted a single substituted phenyl bonded to each of the N atoms to which the circled phenyl substituents are bonded in place of the said two circled phenyl substituents, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Hatakeyama does not exemplify a compound in which a structure that can be equated in which one of the instant rings A, B, C, D, or F is heteroaromatic.
However, Hatakeyama teaches that the ring A, B, or C of formula (1) of Hatakeyama can be heteroaromatic {paragraphs [0016], [0058], and [0062]-[0064]}. Hatakeyama teaches that the heteroaromatic group can be carbazole {paragraph [0064]}. This is exemplified by compound (1-2008) {p. 208}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have further modified the compound of Hatakeyama such that one of the rings linked to the N atoms to which the circled phenyl groups are bonded is replaced with carbazole, based on the teach of Hatakeyama. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Regarding claims 11-15: Hatakeyama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Hatakeyama does not exemplify a specific organic light-emitting diode that comprises the modified compound of Hatakeyama.
However, Hatakeyama teaches an optoelectronic device that is an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) comprising a substrate, an anode, and a cathode {paragraphs [0014], [0042], [0045], [0124]-[0128], and [0141]: The electrodes of Hatakeyama must necessarily be an anode and a cathode for the organic EL element of Hatakeyama to be functional.}.
The anode or the cathode is on the substrate {paragraphs [0014], [0042], [0045], [0124]-[0128], and [0141]: The electrodes of Hatakeyama must necessarily be an anode and a cathode for the organic EL element of Hatakeyama to be functional.}.
The device additionally comprises a light-emitting layer, which is between the anode and the cathode and can comprise the compound of the disclosure of Hatakeyama {paragraphs [0014], [0042], [0045], [0124]-[0128], and [0141]}.
The light emitting layer comprises the compounds of Hatakeyama as light-emitting dopants or as a host material {paragraphs [0141]-[0144]}, and the light-emitting layer additionally comprises a host material or a light-emitting dopant in addition to the compound of Hatakeyama {paragraphs [0141]-[0144]}.
The layers of the device can be fabricated by a vacuum evaporation method {paragraph [0228]}.
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 of Hatakeyama by using as a host material or light-emitting dopant of the light-emitting layer of the device of Hatakeyama described above made by the method of vacuum evaporation, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. 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.
A light emitting layer comprising the modified compound of Hatakeyama as a host or a light-emitting dopant and another separate compound as a host or a light-emitting dopant is a composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-3: as outlined above, Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0069182 A1) (hereafter “Hakakeyama”) is the closest prior art. Hatakeyama requires that two of the adjacent R1 are joined to form a ring. The current claims 2-3 do not permit adjacent R1s to form a ring. The prior art does not teach or motivate modifying the compounds of Hatakeyama to meet this limitation.
Regarding claims 4-8: as outlined above, Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0069182 A1) (hereafter “Hakakeyama”) is the closest prior art. Hatakeyama does not teach the structures required by the current claims 4-8. More specifically, Hatakeyama does not teach a 5-membered heterocycle as either the instant rings E or F. Neither does the prior art teach or motivate modifying the compounds of Hatakeyama such that they would comprise a 5-membered heterocycle as either the instant rings E or F.
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
Prosecution Insights