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.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20200227650 A1).
Kim disclose an OLED having a host material including a fluorescent host [abstract, 0142] having the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
82
113
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X2 and X3 includes N and X1 include S, O and C(Ar1) groups, wherein at least one of X2 and X3 is C(Ar1) [claim 1], and ring A includes naphthyl rings
PNG
media_image2.png
200
141
media_image2.png
Greyscale
attached at the dotted line. When X1 or X3 is C and X2 is N the double bond follows the same pattern as the claims
PNG
media_image3.png
132
111
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[claim 2].
The difference between the disclosed compounds and the claimed compounds is that the claimed compounds include an additional benzene ring, thus having a phenanthrene group instead of a naphthalene group. Kim states in the general disclosure the equivalence of napthyl and phenanthrene groups [0031]. The ordinarily skilled artisan at the would expect the claimed compounds to have similar if not indistinguishable properties.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have prepared the claimed compound because they would have similar if not indistinguishable properties from the compounds of Kim. As stated by MPEP 2144.09:
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).
In re Lohr and Spurlin (137 USPQ 548) teaches: When a new compound so closely related to a prior art compound as to be structurally obvious is sought to be patented based on the alleged greater effectiveness of the new compound for the same purpose as the old compound, clear and convincing evidence of substantially greater effectiveness is needed. Here there are no new properties, but merely an alleged improvement in the same property for use against the same pests.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20200227650 A1) in view of Cao et al (CN 108586188 A).
Kim does not disclose the claimed second host, but does disclose the compound is useful as a host in
Cao discloses the claimed second host with chrysene structure with diarylamine substituent [abstract, claims], including examples that read on instant claim 9:
PNG
media_image4.png
121
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p9/10 of CN document]. Cao discloses that the compound may be used as a fluorescent host material in an OLED emitting layer and that the compound overcomes the aggregation fluorescence quenching effect of fluorescent materials, and has a high glass transition temperature, high thermal stability and excellent luminescent properties and other beneficial properties [p 5-6].
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 the host of Kim in combination with the host of Cao to arrive at the claimed combination in order to combine the advantages of the fluorescent host taught in Kim and Cao, and it would have been obvious to use the two functionally equivalent hosts for the purpose of fluorescent hosts.
It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Lindner 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). Also, case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).Thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the hosts of Kim and Cao.
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