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 .
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, compound A-29
PNG
media_image1.png
328
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
depicts a labeled atom “A”. It is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by compound A-29 as “A” is not an atom and is not a defined variable, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted as not including compound A-29.
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)(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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (US 2019/0194219 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura teaches a composition for an organic optoelectronic device (Example 4), the composition comprising;
a first compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image2.png
382
1210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2
a1 and a2 are each a linking carbon
b1 and b2 are each a linking carbon
a1 is linked to b2
a2 is linked to b1
b3 and b4 are CRa
Ra, R1 to R10 are each a hydrogen
L1 and L2 are each a single bond
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
X is O
A second compound represented by Chemical Formula 3
PNG
media_image3.png
768
1208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 3
Z1 to Z3 are N
L3 is an unsubstituted C12 arylene group
Ar3 and Ar4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
R11 to R15 are each a hydrogen
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura further teaches wherein the first compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1E.
PNG
media_image4.png
419
1209
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where in the Claimed Formula 1E
R1 to R10, L1, L2, Ar1, Ar2, and X are defined the same as in Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 in claim 1 above in Paragraph 8.
Ra1 to Ra4 are each independently defined the same as Ra of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 in claim 1 above in Paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura further teaches wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura further teaches wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are each independently
PNG
media_image5.png
192
341
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Group 1.
PNG
media_image6.png
495
1208
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura further teaches wherein the second compound is represented by Chemical Formula 3-II
PNG
media_image7.png
719
1210
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 3-II, Z1 to Z3, L3 to L5, Ar3, Ar4, and R11 to R15 are defined the same as those of Chemical Formula 3 as described in claim 1 above in Paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura further teaches wherein Ar3 and Ar4 are each an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura further teaches wherein Ar3 and Ar4 are each
PNG
media_image8.png
141
332
media_image8.png
Greyscale
of Group II.
PNG
media_image9.png
782
1212
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura further teaches wherein the second compound is
PNG
media_image10.png
405
363
media_image10.png
Greyscale
which is compound D-8
PNG
media_image11.png
345
404
media_image11.png
Greyscale
of instant application.
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura further teaches wherein the organic optoelectronic device (Example 4, Table 2, para. [0288] – [0295]) comprises an anode (ITO, para. [0288]) and a cathode (Al, para. [0295]) facing each other, and at least one organic layer (hole injection layer, para. [0289], first hole transporting layer, para. [0290], second hole transporting layer, para. [0291], emitting layer, para. [0292], electron transporting layer, para. [0293], electron injection layer, para. [0294]) disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer (para. [0292]), and the at least one light emitting layer includes the composition (compound EP-1 and compound EN-4) for an organic optoelectronic device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura further teaches wherein the composition for an organic optoelectronic device is a host of the emitting layer (para. [0292]).
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 3, 6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2019/0194219 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, and 12-13 above.
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura teaches the composition the composition for an organic optoelectronic device of claim 2 as described above in Paragraph 9.
In Example 4, Kawamura does not specifically teach wherein the first compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1A or Chemical Formula 1B.
However, Kawamura teaches that compound EP-1 is a specific compound of formula (1)
PNG
media_image12.png
544
800
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Examiner notes that the compound of formula (1) of Kawamura is a structural isomer of claimed Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B that differs only in the bonding of the indole group to the dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene core structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Kawamura to provide a structural isomer and arrive at the claimed Chemical Formula 1A or Chemical Formula 1B.
The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state “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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c). and “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura teaches the composition for an organic optoelectronic device of claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 8.
In Example 4, Kawamura does not specifically teach a composition wherein the first compound is a compound of Group 1.
However, Kawamura teaches that compound EP-1 of Example 4, is a specific compound of formula (1) (para. [0100]) and that compounds of formula (1) are suitable compounds for the emitting layer of the OLED (para. [0012]). Compound
PNG
media_image13.png
390
859
media_image13.png
Greyscale
is a specific compound of formula (1).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kawamura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute compound EP-1 of Example 4 with a suitable compound of formula (1) such as
PNG
media_image13.png
390
859
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. 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 host compound in the emitting layer of the OLED of Kawamura and possess the benefits taught by Kawamura. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound
PNG
media_image13.png
390
859
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, because it would have been choosing one suitable host for another, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host compound in the emitting layer of the OLED device of Kawamura and possessing the benefits taught by Kawamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds comprising
PNG
media_image13.png
390
859
media_image13.png
Greyscale
having the benefits taught by Kawamura in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound
PNG
media_image13.png
390
859
media_image13.png
Greyscale
of Kawamura reads on compound A-18
PNG
media_image14.png
400
494
media_image14.png
Greyscale
of instant application.
Regarding claim 11, Kawamura teaches the organic optoelectronic device of claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 8 wherein,
The second compound is represented by Chemical Formula 3-II
PNG
media_image7.png
719
1210
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 3-II
Z1 to Z3 are each N
Ar3 and Ar4 are an unsubstituted phenyl group
L3 to L5 are each a single bond
R11 to R15 are each hydrogen
In Example 4, Kawamura does not specifically teach wherein the first compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1A or Chemical Formula 1B.
However, examiner notes that the compound of formula (1) of Kawamura is a structural isomer of claimed Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B that differs only in the bonding of the indole group to the dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene core structure, as stated above for claim 3 in Paragraph 23.
Regarding claim 14, Kawamura teaches the organic optoelectronic device of claim 12 as describe above in Paragraph 16.
In Example 4, Kawamura does not specifically teach a display device that comprises the organic optoelectronic device.
However, Kawamura teaches that their organic electroluminescence devices may be use to equip an electronic apparatus (para. [0271]). Kawamura teaches that an electronic apparatus may be flat panel displays of wall-hanging televisions; backlights of copiers, printers, and liquid crystal displays; light sources of measuring instruments; displaying boards; and marker lamps (para. [0271]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic electroluminescence device claim 12 in a display devices, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kawamura according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with the organic optoelectronic device of claim 12, as taught by Kawamura. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2017/0256719 A1) in view of Kawamura et al. (US 2019/0194219 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a compound (P-30) represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image15.png
435
1209
media_image15.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2
a1 and a2 are linking carbons
b2 and b3 are linking carbons
b1 and b4 are each a CRa
a1 is linked to b2
a2 is linked to b3
Ra and R1 to R10 are each a hydrogen
L1 is an unsubstituted C10 arylene group
L2 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene group
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
X is S
Jang teaches that compound P-30 is a compound of Formula 5 which represents Formula 1 (para. [0076]). Additionally, Jang teaches that compounds of Formula 1 are used in the light emitting layer to improve the lifetime and efficiency of an organic optoelectronic device (organic electronic element, para. [0052]).
Jang does not teach wherein P-30 or the compounds of formula 1 are used in a composition wherein the second compound is represented by Chemical Formula 3.
Kawamura teaches similar compounds of a seven ring fused system, compounds of formula (1), used in OLEDs. Additionally, Kawamura teaches that compounds of formula (1), when used in combination with compounds of formula (2) as a host material of the emitting layer, it results in prolonged lifetime of the device (para. [0036]).
In Example 4, Kawamura teaches a seven ring fused system compound of formula (1) in combination with compound EN-4 of Kawamura’s formula (2). Compound EN-4 reads of Chemical Formula 3 of instant application.
PNG
media_image3.png
768
1208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 3
Z1 to Z3 are N
L3 is an unsubstituted C12 arylene group
Ar3 and Ar4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
R11 to R15 are each a hydrogen
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine compound P-30 of Jang as the first host and compound EN-4 of Kawamura as a second host in a composition for an organic optoelectronic device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Jang and Kawamura according to known methods to yield predictable results of an optoelectronic device with prolonged lifetime, as taught by Kawamura. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jang teaches wherein the first compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1A.
PNG
media_image16.png
487
1210
media_image16.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 1A
R1 to R10, L1, L2, Ar1, Ar2, and X are defined the same as in Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 in claim 1 above in Paragraph 28.
Ra1 to Ra4 are each independently defined the same as Ra of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 in claim 1 above in Paragraph 28.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jang further teaches wherein the first compounds is represented by Chemical Formula 1A as depicted in claim 2 above in Paragraph 29.
Regarding claim 4, modified Jang further teaches wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jang further teaches wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are each independently
PNG
media_image5.png
192
341
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Group 1.
PNG
media_image17.png
564
1211
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Jang teaches the composition for an organic optoelectronic device of claim as described above in Paragraph 28.
Modified Jang does not specifically teach wherein the first compound is selected from Group 1. However, Jang teaches that compound P-30 is a compound of Formula 5 which represents Formula 1 (para. [0076]).
PNG
media_image18.png
264
1209
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Jang teaches that L1 is an aryl group and that from within a list of aryl possible aryl groups, phenylene is a specific example of L1 (para. [0068]).
PNG
media_image19.png
437
1210
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Jang, 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 L1 of compound P-30 with a phenylene group in place of the naphthalene. 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 first host compound in the light emitting layer of the OLED of modified Jang and possess the benefits taught by Jang. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a phenyl group as L1, because it would have been choosing an L1 group, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the first host in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of modified Jang and possessing the benefits taught by Jang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds with a phenyl linker having the benefits taught by Jang 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 P-30
PNG
media_image20.png
458
591
media_image20.png
Greyscale
of further modified Jang is claimed compound A-27
PNG
media_image21.png
398
415
media_image21.png
Greyscale
of Group 1 of instant application.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jang further teaches wherein the second compound is represented by Chemical Formula 3-II.
PNG
media_image22.png
749
1210
media_image22.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 3-II, Z1 to Z3, L3 to L5, Ar3, Ar4, and R11 to R15 are defined the same as those of Chemical Formula 3 as described in claim 1 above in Paragraph 28.
Regarding claim 8, modified Jang further teaches wherein Ar3 and Ar4 are each an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Regarding claim 9, modified Jang further teaches wherein Ar3 and Ar4 are each
PNG
media_image8.png
141
332
media_image8.png
Greyscale
of Group II.
PNG
media_image23.png
717
992
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, further teaches wherein the second compound is
PNG
media_image24.png
782
701
media_image24.png
Greyscale
which is compound D-8
PNG
media_image11.png
345
404
media_image11.png
Greyscale
of instant application.
Regarding claim 11, modified Jang teaches the organic optoelectronic deice of claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 28.
Modified Jang further teaches wherein the first compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1A, as described above in Paragraph 28,
PNG
media_image16.png
487
1210
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Modified Jang further teaches wherein the second compound is represented by Chemical Formula 3-II, as described above for claim 7 in Paragraph 34,
PNG
media_image22.png
749
1210
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified Jang further teaches an organic optoelectronic device (para. [0197]), comprising an anode (ITO layer, para. [0197]) and a cathode (Al, para. [0197]) facing each other, and at least one organic layer (hole transport layer, light emitting layer, hole blocking layer, electron injection layer, para. [0197]) disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer (para. [0197]), and the light emitting layer includes the composition for an organic optoelectronic device of claim 1 (as described above in Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jang further teaches wherein the composition for an organic optoelectronic device is a host of the light emitting layer, as described above for claim 1 in Paragraph 28.
Regarding claim 14, modified Jang teaches the organic optoelectronic device of claim 12 as describe above in Paragraph 39.
Modified Jang does not specifically teach a display device that comprises the organic optoelectronic device.
Kawamura teaches that their organic electroluminescence devices may be use to equip an electronic apparatus (para. [0271]). Kawamura teaches that an electronic apparatus may be flat panel displays of wall-hanging televisions; backlights of copiers, printers, and liquid crystal displays; light sources of measuring instruments; displaying boards; and marker lamps (para. [0271]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic optoelectronic device of claim 12 in a display device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of modified Jang and Kawamura according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with the organic optoelectronic device of claim 12, as taught by Kawamura. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
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