DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 7/21/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claims 1 and 8 to require that L14 is not a substituted or unsubstituted fluorene group, a substituted or unsubstituted carbazole group, a substituted or unsubstituted naphthylene group. Applicants have also amended claim 1 to include the proviso that Ra is not a substituted or unsubstituted fluorenyl group or a C6-C60 aryl group substituted with a fluorenyl group. Applicants have also modified proviso (1) later in claims 1 and 8 to include the embodiment when R11-R13 is a substituted or unsubstituted biphenyl group. Claims 1 and 8 have also been amended to recite that when n2 is 0, Ra is hydrogen or a group represented by Formula 2-2, a22 is 0, X23 is a single bond, and variables b23 and b24 are each 0, then a sum of n1 and b1 is 2 or greater. Independent claim 8 has also been amended to exclude a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl group from proviso (2). Last, independent claim 18 has been amended to include the requirement that R11-R13 is not a substituted or unsubstituted pyridinyl group.
Applicants traverse the 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20. Applicants argue that the amendment “when n2 is 0, Ra is hydrogen or a group represented by Formula 2-2, a22 is 0, X23 is a single bond, and variables b23 and b24 are each 0, then a sum of n1 and b1 is 2 or greater” should overcome this rejection. Applicants point to paragraph 0174 of the instant application which is assumed to be where Applicants believe that the newly proposed amendments have support. However, paragraph 0174 is drawn to specific compounds and does not generally allow for Applicants to carve out specific limitations so as to get around the prior art. This is further elaborated in the 112(a) rejection below.
The prior art rejections to Lyu et al. (CN-108409774), Park et al. (US 2017/0170408), Li et al. (WO 2016/025921), and Cheng et al. (US 2009/0131670 are withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments.
The prior art rejection to Lyu A (CN-108409773) is partially maintained as described below. Further search has led to new prior art rejections, as described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1 and 8 have been amended to include the condition that “when n2 is O, Ra is hydrogen or a group represented by Formula 2-2, a22 is 0, X23 is a single bond, and variables b23 and b24 are each 0, then a sum of n1 and b1 is 2 or greater”. This proviso is not simply just carving out one single compound or a readily envisaged negative limitation, but is instead a complex exclusion based on specific combinations of variables. The fairness of a new matter rejection hinges on whether that specific “carve-out” was ever contemplated or if it creates a “newly claimed sub-genus”. While MPEP 2163.05(i) allows negative limitations to overcome the prior art, an Applicant cannot simply add a negative limitation that is created through the picking and choosing from multiple variable selections to create a sub-genus that wasn’t originally identified. The originally filed disclosure does not provide any direction that would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to the specific selections of the variables in question which lead to the compound to be excluded. The Applicant is essentially stitching together an exclusion from disparate parts of the specification to perfectly “shrink wrap” around the compounds disclosed in the prior art (specifically, Kim et al. WO 2010/126234). The specific list of conditions which leads to the proviso is not disclosed in any reasonable manner to suggest that Applicant had possession of such an exclusion.
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.
Claims 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyu A (CN-108409773, already of record).
Claim 8: Lyu et al. teaches compound 64-3 as taught on page 24. Compound 64-3 has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
182
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. As applied to Formula 1, X1, X3, and X5 are equal to N, X2 and X4 are equal to C(Ra) with both Ra groups equal to phenyl, b1 is equal to 1, R1 equal to an unsubstituted C7 aryl group (o-tolyl), n2 is equal to zero, n1 is equal to 1, n1 + n2 equal to 1, B1 is equal to formula 1-1 with variable A equal to Si, a14 equal to 1, L14 equal to p-phenylene, a11-a13 equal to 1, L11-L13 equal to a single bond, b11-b13 equal to 1, and R11-R13 equal to phenyl. None of Applicants provisos of claim 8 apply to compound 64-3.
Claim 9: In compound 64-3, the sum of n1 and n2 is equal to 1 which anticipates claim 9.
Claim 10: Compound 64-3 anticipates condition (i) of claim 10.
Claim 11: In compound 64-3, A is equal to Si which anticipates claim 11.
Claim 12: In compound 64-3, L11-L13 are equal to a single bond, and L14 is equal to formula 3-1 with d4 equal to zero, thereby anticipating claim 12.
Claim 13: In compound 64-3, variables R11-R13 are equal to phenyl, thereby anticipating claim 13.
Claim 14: Claim 14 serves to further limit an optional embodiment where there is a group satisfying Formula 1-2 or 2-1. Compound 64-3 does not have either group and may be properly relied upon to reject claim 14.
Claims 15-17: In compound 64-3 both Ra groups are equal to phenyl, which satisfies claim 15, formula 6-1 of claim 16 with b61 equal to 0, and formula 7-1 of claim 17.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2011/055912). A copy of this reference is included with this Office action.
Claim 8: Lee et al. teaches compound 33 which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
98
178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 8). As applied to Formula 1, X1, X3, and X5 are equal to N, X2 and X4 are equal to C(Ra) with both Ra groups equal to phenyl, b1 is equal to zero, n1 is equal to 0, n2 is equal to 1, n1 + n2 equal to 1, B2 is equal to formula 1-2 with a15 equal to 1, L15 equal to p-phenylene, X11 equal to Si(R16), R16 equal to phenyl, X12 equal to a single bond, and b14 and b15 equal to zero. None of Applicants provisos of claim 8 apply to compound 33.
Claim 9: In compound 33, the sum of n1 and n2 is equal to 1 which anticipates claim 9.
Claim 10: Compound 33 anticipates condition (i) of claim 10.
Claim 11: In compound 33, A is equal to Si which anticipates claim 11.
Claim 12: In compound 33, L15 is equal to formula 3-1 with d4 equal to zero, thereby anticipating claim 12.
Claim 13: Claim 13 serves to further limit an optional embodiment where there is a group satisfying Formula 1-1. Since claim 8 does not require such a group, claim 13 may be properly rejected by Lee et al.
Claim 14: In compound 33, X12 is equal to a single bond, thereby anticipating claim 14.
Claims 15-17: In compound 33 both Ra groups are equal to phenyl, which satisfies claim 15, formula 6-1 of claim 16 with b61 equal to 0, and formula 7-1 of claim 17.
Claims 1-6: The rejection of claim 8 above is wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 1. The compounds taught by Lee et al., which includes compound 33, are employed as host materials in organic electroluminescent devices. The device examples include an anode which is ITO, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer comprising Ir(ppy)3 as a green dopant, one of the inventive host materials, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer and a cathode which is Al. The anode and cathode anticipate claim 1. The preparation of a light-emitting device as taught by Lee et al. using any one of the explicitly taught compounds therein, including compound 33, is at once envisaged. Such a device satisfies all of the structural and device limitations of claims 1-6. The dopant Ir(ppy)3 anticipates formula 401 with M equal to Ir, xc2 equal to zero, xc1 equal to 1, and L401 equal to Formula 402 with X403 and X404 equal to C, X405 equal to a single bond, X401 equal to N, X402 equal to C, X406 equal to a single bond, xc11 and xc12 equal to zero, ring A401 equal to pyridine, and ring A402 equal to benzene.
Claims 1-3 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN-110386947). Copies of the original and a machine translation are included with this Office action.
Claim 8: Li et al. teaches compounds 1-145, 1-146, 1-147, 1-149 on pages 9 and 10, which anticipate Formula 1 of claim 8. Compound 1-145, as one example, has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
134
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. As applied to Formula 1, compound 1-145 has X1, X3, and X5 equal to N, X2 and X4 equal to C(Ra) with both Ra groups equal to phenyl, b1 equal to zero, n2 equal to 0, n1 is equal to 1, n1 + n2 equal to 1, B1 equal to formula 1-1 with A equal to Si, a14 equal to 2, one L14 equal to p-phenylene, and the other L14 equal to a substituted pyrenylene group, a11-a13 equal to zero, L11-L13 equal to a single bond, b11-b13 equal to 1 and R11-R13 equal to phenyl. None of Applicants provisos of claim 8 apply to compound 1-145.
Claim 9: In compound 1-145, the sum of n1 and n2 is equal to 1 which anticipates claim 9.
Claim 10: Compound 1-145 anticipates condition (i) of claim 10.
Claim 11: In compound 1-145, A is equal to Si which anticipates claim 11.
Claim 12: Claim 12 serves to further limit an optional embodiment where there is a group satisfying Formula 1-2. Since claim 8 does not require such a group, claim 12 may be properly rejected by Li et al.
Claim 13: In compound 1-145, R11-R13 are phenyl, which anticipates claim 13.
Claim 14: Claim 12 serves to further limit an optional embodiment where there is a group satisfying Formula 1-2, 2-1, and/or 2-2. Since claim 8 does not require such a group, claim 14 may be properly rejected by Li et al.
Claims 15-17: In compound 1-145 both Ra groups are equal to phenyl, which satisfies claim 15, formula 6-1 of claim 16 with b61 equal to 0, and formula 7-1 of claim 17.
Claims 1-3 and 7: The rejection of claim 8 above is wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 1. The compounds taught by Li et al., which includes compounds 1-145, 1-146, 1-147, and 1-149, are employed as blue dopants in organic electroluminescent devices. The device examples include an anode which is ITO, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer one of the inventive dopants taught therein, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer and a cathode which is Al. The anode and cathode anticipate claim 1. The preparation of a light-emitting device as taught by Li et al. using any one of the explicitly taught compounds therein, including compounds 1-145, 1-146, 1-147, and 1-149, is at once envisaged. Such a device satisfies all of the structural and device limitations of claims 1-3 and 7.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xia et al. (US 2012/0223634).
Compound 79 of Xia et al. represents the metalated version of the uncomplexed ligand without Pt (page 58). The metalated complexes taught by Xia et al. are shown to be prepared by first preparing a compound which has four sites which can bind to a metal, followed by a metalation step. This is shown in the working examples of Xia et al. It is understood that preparing any one of the explicitly taught metal complexes of Xia et al. inherently requires first preparing an uncomplexed compound followed by a metalation step. Because compound 79 of Xia et al. is explicitly taught by Xia et al. and Xia et al. teaches that such compounds are prepared in a final step of metalation, the uncomplexed compound 79 of Xia et al. is inherently taught. Compound 79 anticipates Formula 1 of claim 18 with X1 equal to N, X2-X5 equal to CH, b1 and n2 equal to zero, n1 equal to 1, n1 + n2 equal to 1, B1 equal to Formula 1-1 with a14 equal to zero, A equal to Si, a11-a13 equal to 1, two of L11-L13 equal to unsubstituted phenyl and the remaining one equal to a substituted phenyl, b11-b13 equal to 1, and R11-R13 equal to hydrogen. Compound 79, prior to metalation, also anticipates Formula 1A-22 of claim 18 with a6 equal to zero, R7 equal to hydrogen, Ra equal to hydrogen, and R31-R33 being described above.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2011/055912) further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0385215, already of record), as applied to claim 8.
Lee et al. teaches a compound which satisfies independent claim 8 as described above. While Lee et al. does not explicitly suggest preparing deuterated analogs of the compounds taught therein, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have prepared such deuterated analogs given the teachings of Kim et al. Kim et al. teaches that deuterated analogs for host materials provide increased lifespan due to the decrease of zero point vibration energy of the deuterated compounds compared to analogous non-deuterated compounds (paragraph 0073). For this reason, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced some of all of the hydrogen atoms in the specific compounds taught by Lee et al., including compound 33, with deuterium. The replacement of some or all of the hydrogen atoms in such compounds would necessarily include embodiments where the deuteration rate is above 10% thereby satisfying Equation 1 of claim 19.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, claim 20 is free of any prior art rejections.
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
Prosecution Insights