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. KR10-2021-0041901, filed on 03/31/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/07/2023 and 10/27/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 08/07/2023. 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 08/07/2023, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-14 were originally filed.
Claims 12 and 14 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given on pages 14 and 15 are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
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.
Claims 4-9 are 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.
With respect to claims 4-9, the claims all contain reference to a single formula out of the three formulae set forth in the alternative in parent claim 2. This introduces uncertainty to the claims because parent claim 2 requires that the compound of Chemical Formula 1 is only represented by one of Chemical Formulae 1-1, 1-2, or 1-3. However, claims 4-9 seem to imply that all three of Chemical Formulae 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 are individually required.
In continuing examination, these limitations are being interpreted as being required only when each respective formula is used in parent claim 2.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al. (WO 2010/050778 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 3, and 8, Eum discloses compound 900 (page 54) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
278
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Eum Chemical Formula 1, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
314
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Eum also teaches that X and Y can be independently selected and X may be divalent oxygen (paragraph 29, lines 1-2).
Such a modification produces the compound below.
PNG
media_image4.png
342
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when X is an oxygen atom, R12 and R13 are a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, R10 is represented by Chemical Formula 2, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms. In Chemical Formula 2, L is a direct bond, Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group and Ar2 is a C12 aryl (biphenyl) group.
Eum teaches that the described compounds for electronic material exhibit high luminous efficiency and excellent life property of the material so that OLEDS having very good operation life of device can be advantageously manufactured (paragraph 247).
Eum includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eum being a lack of the aforementioned divalent oxygen atom being explicitly used. 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 any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of compounds for electronic material which exhibit high luminous efficiency and excellent life property of the material so that OLEDS having very good operation life of device can be advantageously manufactured (paragraph 247), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 2, Eum teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is also represented by instant Chemical Formula 1-3 when Rb and Rc are hydrogen atoms, and all other characters are as discussed above.
With respect to claims 4-7, Eum teaches the compound of claim 2, and the compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1-3, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Eum teaches the compound of claim 2, as discussed above.
Eum also teaches compound 1151 (page 64), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
344
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
When modified in the same manner as the compound 900 above, a compound is produced which meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein R10 has a structure of Chemical Formula 2 and R2 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
Eum includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eum being a lack of the aforementioned divalent oxygen atom being explicitly used. 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 any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of compounds for electronic material which exhibit high luminous efficiency and excellent life property of the material so that OLEDS having very good operation life of device can be advantageously manufactured (paragraph 247), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 10, Eum teaches the compound of claim 1, and Eum also teaches that in Chemical Formula 1, any of R1, R2, or R3, may be a deuterium atom (paragraph 25) and the carbon bridging group (Y, CR31R32, paragraph 29) may also comprise deuterium substituents (paragraph 30).
Such a modification produces a compound with at least 9 deuterium atoms (out of 26 total hydrogen plus deuterium).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the prior art teaches at least 35 % deuteration, which falls within the claimed range of 30 to 100 % deuteration. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 11, Eum teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound of claim 1 is instant compound 262.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Eum teaches the compound of claim 1, and Eum also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first and second electrode, and an organic layer which comprises one or more layers such as a hole transport layer and an electroluminescent layer, and the compound may be comprised in either of these layers (paragraph 137).
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 include the compound in one or more organic layers of an organic light emitting device with the claimed structure, as taught by Eum.
With respect to claim 14, Eum teaches the compound of claim 1, and Eum also discloses a method of manufacturing an OLED using a compound of the description (paragraph 364), the method comprising the steps of preparing a glass substrate (paragraph 366), forming a first electrode, an anode, on the substrate (paragraph 367), forming one or more organic layer on the anode, such as a hole injecting layer (paragraph 369), and a hole transport layer comprising the compounds of the prior art in a composition (paragraph 371), and forming a second electrode, a cathode, on the organic layers (paragraph 373).
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 develop a method of manufacturing an organic light emitting device with the claimed steps, as taught by Eum.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brocke et al. (US 2012/0319052 A1) – teaches relevant compounds with a nitrogen core and carbazole substituents.
Cui et al. (CN 110818635 A) – teaches relevant compounds with a spirobifluorene moiety and arylamine substituents.
Li et al. (CN 106467554 A) – teaches boron analogs.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights