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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds and formulas across various pages of the instant specification have low resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 2, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds and formulas are low resolution and it is difficult to discern the variables and atoms in the structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In this instant case, claim 10 recite “R2s are connected to each other to form -O-(CH2)m1-O-, where m1 is an integer of 1 to 3” and is dependent on claim 2. The formula in claim 2 and definition recites that R2s are connected to each other to form -O-(CH2)m2-O-. Thus, it is unclear how R2s may be connected to each other to form -O-(CH2)m1-O-. For examination purposes claim 10 is interpreted as saying: “R2s are connected to each other to form -O-(CH2)m2-O-, where m2 is an integer of 1 to 3”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koch et al. (US 2024/0365667 A1).
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.
Regarding claim 1, Koch teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (page 130, para. 0433, depicted below as compound 1 for purpose of examination)
PNG
media_image1.png
557
1209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Chemical Formula 1
A1, A2, A3, and A4 are C6 aromatic rings
X is N-R, where R is a substituted C6 aryl
Y is B
n1 and n2 are 2.
Regarding claim 2, Koch further teaches wherein in the compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1’
PNG
media_image2.png
557
1209
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Chemical Formula 1’
n1 and n2 are 2
two adjacent R1s are connected to each other to form -O-(CH2)m1-O-, where m1 is 2
two adjacent R2s are connected to each other to form -O-(CH2)m2-O-, where m2 is 2
R3 is hydrogen
n3 and n4 are 2.
Regarding claim 3, Koch further teaches wherein the compound is represented by Chemical Formula 4
PNG
media_image3.png
533
1211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Chemical Formula 4
n1, n2, m1, and m2 are 2.
Regarding claim 4, Koch further teaches wherein n1 and n2 are 2.
Regarding claim 7, Koch further teaches wherein n3 is 2, and R1s are connected to each other to form -O-(CH2)m1-O-, where m1 is 2.
Regarding claim 8, Koch further teaches wherein n3 is 2, and R1s are connected to each other to for a substituent represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
56
54
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein “*” denotes a bonding site.
Regarding claim 10, Koch further teaches wherein n4 is 2 and adjacent R2s are connected to each other to form -O-(CH2)m2-O-, where m2 is 2.
Regarding claim 11, Koch further teaches wherein n4 is 2, and R2s are connected to each other to for a substituent represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
56
54
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein “*” denotes a bonding site.
Regarding claim 13, Koch teaches that R3 is a hydrogen. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 2 and claim 2 does not require R3 to be Chemical Formula 2, thus the limitations wherein L, L1, and L2 are each independently a single bond, phenylene, or naphthylene are not required.
Regarding claim 14, Koch teaches that R3 is a hydrogen. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 2 and claim 2 does not require R3 to be Chemical Formula 2, thus the limitations wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are each independently phenyl, biphenyl, terphenylyl, naphthyl, dimethylfluorenyl, diphenylfluorenyl, benzofuranyl, dibenzofuranyl, benzothiophenyl, or dibenzothiophenyl are not required.
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 5-6, 9, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 2024/0365667 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Koch teaches the compound of claim 2 (Compound 1 as depicted above for claim 2 in paragraph 13).
In Compound 1, Koch fails to teach wherein n3 is 0 or 1, and R1 is deuterium, a substituted or unsubstituted C1-10 alkyl, a substituted or unsubstituted C6-10 aryl, or a substituted or unsubstituted C8-12 heteroaryl containing any one or more heteroatoms selected from the group consisting of N, O, and S.
PNG
media_image5.png
1092
1209
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, compound 1 is represented by Formula I of Koch, and in Formula 1, Koch teaches ring c may be selected as an unsubstituted phenyl ring, among others (para. [0097]).
Therefore, given Formula I and teachings of Koch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize an unsubstituted phenyl in the position of ring c instead of the substituted phenyl. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a blue emission compound in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of Koch and possess the benefits taught by Koch. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an unsubstituted phenyl in the position of ring c instead of the substituted phenyl, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of blue emission compound in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of Koch and possess the benefits taught by Koch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Koch’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Koch in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Modified compound I reads on the limitations of claim 5 wherein n3 is 0 and thus R1 is not required to be present.
Regarding claim 6, modified Koch further teaches wherein n3 is 0 and thus R1 is not required to be present (as depicted above for claim 5 in paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 9, Koch teaches the compound of claim 2 (Compound 1 as depicted above for claim 2 in paragraph 13).
In Compound 1, Koch fails to teach wherein n4 is 0 or 1, and R2 is deuterium, a substituted or unsubstituted C1-10 alkyl, a substituted or unsubstituted C6-10 aryl, or a substituted or unsubstituted C8-12 heteroaryl containing any one or more heteroatoms selected from the group consisting of N, O, and S.
PNG
media_image6.png
1092
1209
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, compound 1 is represented by Formula I of Koch, and in Formula 1, Koch teaches RVI-RX may be selected as hydrogen and OR5, among others (para. [0012]-[0013]).
Therefore, given Formula I and teachings of Koch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the OR5 substituents in the locations of RVII and RVIII with hydrogen. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a blue emission compound in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of Koch and possess the benefits taught by Koch. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the OR5 substituents in the locations of RVII and RVIII with hydrogen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of blue emission compound in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of Koch and possess the benefits taught by Koch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Koch’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Koch in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Modified compound I reads on the limitations of claim 9 wherein n4 is 0 and thus R2 is not required to be present.
Regarding claim 12, Koch teaches the compound of claim 2 (Compound 1 as depicted above for claim 2 in paragraph 13).
In Compound 1, Koch fails to teach wherein R3 is substituted or unsubstituted C1-10 alkyl, a substituted or unsubstituted C6-30 aryl, or the substituent represented by Chemical Formula 2.
PNG
media_image7.png
1063
1209
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Koch teaches that compound 1 is represented by Formula VIIc, wherein X1, X2, and X3 consist of CRa, and Ra may be a hydrogen or C1-C40 alkyl, wherein examples of C1-C40 alkyl include methyl, among others (para. [0011] – [0014] and [0125]).
Therefore, given Formula VIIc and teachings of Koch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the hydrogen in position X2 of compound 1 of Koch with a substituted or unsubstituted C1-10 alkyl, for example, a methyl group. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a blue emission compound in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of Koch and possess the benefits taught by Koch. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hydrogen in position X2 of compound 1 of Koch with a methyl group, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of blue emission compound in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of Koch and possess the benefits taught by Koch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Koch’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Koch in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 15, modified Koch further teaches wherein the compound of claim 1 is the claimed compound
PNG
media_image8.png
90
129
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Modified Compound 1 as depicted for claim 12 in paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 16, Koch teaches an organic light emitting device (Example D1 and OLED D1, para. [0431] – [0432]) comprising: a first electrode (Example D1 and OLED D1, layer 1, ITO, Table 3, para. [0432]); a second electrode (layer 9, Al, Table 3, para. [0432]) provided opposite to the first electrode; and at least one organic material layer (layers 2-7, Table 3, para. [0432]) provided between the first electrode and the second electrode
In Example D1, Koch fails to specifically teach wherein the organic material layers comprise the compound of claim 1. However, Koch teach that Compound 1 (as depicted above for claim 1 in paragraph 12) is an example of an organic molecule that can be used in light emitting layer (layer #5 which provides emission, para. [0431] – [0432]) of organic light emitting device (para. [0433], page 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to substitute the compound used in Example D1 for the emitting layer (layer #5, table 3, para. [0431] - [0432]) of Koch with Compound 1 (as depicted above for claim 1 in paragraph 12), because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Koch according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with blue emission, as taught by Koch. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 17, modified Koch further teaches wherein the at least one organic material layer comprising the compound is a light emitting layer (layer #5 which provides emission, Table 3, para. [0431] - [0432]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights