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 based on an application filed in China on 05/12/2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 3, 5–8, and 14 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.
Claims 3, 5–8, and 14 all recite “preferably” followed by a further claim limitation. It is therefore unclear whether the claim includes the limitation after “preferably”. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as not including the limitation after “preferably”.
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.
(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 1–7, 10, and 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2022/065762 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 09/02/2023, hereinafter “Lee”). An English translation has been provided in this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses compound 2-36 [216] which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
387
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
407
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is O,
Group A is an unsubstituted aryl with 6 carbon atoms (phenyl),
L1 is a single bond,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl with 6 carbon atoms (phenyl),
R1 and R2 are not present since n1 and n2 are each 0.
Regarding Claim 2, compound 2-36 is represented by Applicant’s Formula 1-1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
221
279
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
407
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, group A is represented by an unsubstituted phenyl in compound 2-36.
Regarding Claim 4, group A is represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
78
53
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in compound 2-36.
Regarding Claim 5, L1 is a single bond in compound 2-36.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl with 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) in compound 2-36.
Regarding Claim 10,
PNG
media_image5.png
40
114
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
78
53
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in compound 2-36.
Regarding Claim 12, R3 and R4 are not present in compound 2-36 since X is O. Therefore, compound 2-36 reads on Applicant’s optional limitation.
Regarding Claim 13, compound 2-36 is identical to Applicant’s compound A29 (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
199
140
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
407
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1–7, 9–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2024/0389454 A1, hereinafter “Lim”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lim discloses compound 1-225 [pg. 76] which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
387
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
328
333
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is S,
Group A is an unsubstituted aryl with 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) substituted with deuterium,
L1 is a single bond,
Ar1 is an aryl with 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) substituted with deuterium.
R1 and R2 are each deuterium, while n1 and n2 are each 7.
Regarding Claim 2, compound 1-225 is represented by Applicant’s Formula 1-4 (shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
202
254
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
328
333
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, group A is represented by a phenyl substituted with deuterium in compound 1-225.
Regarding Claim 4, group A is represented by
PNG
media_image9.png
68
65
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in compound 1-225.
Regarding Claim 5, L1 is a single bond in compound 1-225.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Ar1 is an aryl with 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) substituted with deuterium in compound 1-225.
Regarding Claim 9,
PNG
media_image5.png
40
114
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is represented by
PNG
media_image4.png
78
53
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and is substituted with deuterium in compound 1-225.
Regarding Claim 10,
PNG
media_image5.png
40
114
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is represented by
PNG
media_image9.png
68
65
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in compound 1-225.
Regarding Claim 11, R1 and R-2 are each represented by deuterium in compound 1-225.
Regarding Claim 12, R3 and R4 are not present in compound 1-225 since X is S. Therefore, compound 1-225 reads on Applicant’s optional limitation.
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.
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 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2024/0389454 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Lim teaches an organic optoelectronic device including an anode, and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer incudes a compound of present disclosure [0025]. Lim further teaches an organic optoelectronic device comprising a compound of present disclosure results in a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and a long life-span [0027].
However, Lim fails to disclose a device comprising compound 1-225.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 1-225 in a device, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds taught by Lim, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the light emitting layer of the optoelectronic device of Lim and possessing the benefits taught by Lim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound 1-225 having the benefits taught by Lim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer comprising compound 1-225.
Regarding Claim 15, Lim teaches a display device including the optoelectronic device of present disclosure.
However, Lim fails to disclose a display device comprising the optoelectronic device including compound 1-225.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optoelectronic device, as described above, in a display device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lim according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long life-span, as taught by Lim. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 14–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2022/065762 A1).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Lee teaches an organic light-emitting element includes an anode, a cathode, and one or more organic layers provided between the first and second electrodes, wherein one or more of the organic layers includes the compounds taught by Lee, such as compound 2-36 [231] – [232]. Lee further teaches when a compounds of Lee’s Formula 1 and Lee’s Formula 2 are used simultaneously in the light-emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device, the driving voltage can be reduced, the luminous efficiency can be improved, and the thermal stability of the compounds can be enhanced [30].
However, Lee fails to disclose an organic light-emitting element comprising compound 2-36.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce an organic light-emitting element comprising compound 2-36, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds taught by Lee, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the light-emitting layer of the organic light-emitting device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound 2-36 having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 14, the resulting organic light-emitting device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes an anode, a cathode, and a light-emitting layer which comprises compound 2-36.
Per Claim 15, Lee teaches organic light-emitting devices are a type of self-emissive display device which have a wide viewing angle, excellent contrast, and fast response speed [3]. Therefore, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it is a type of self-emissive display device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2022/065762 A1) as applied to claims 1–7, 10, and 12–15 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (US 2016/0372665 A1, hereinafter “Takada”).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches Ra and Rb may each be an aryl group in Chemical Formula 2 (shown below) [22]. Lee further teaches the aryl group may be a phenantrenyl group [64]. Additionally, Lee teaches when a compounds of Lee’s Formula 1 and Lee’s Formula 2 are used simultaneously in the light-emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device, the driving voltage can be reduced, the luminous efficiency can be improved, and the thermal stability of the compounds can be enhanced [30].
PNG
media_image10.png
216
356
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
407
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Lee fails to disclose an exemplified compound comprising a phenanthryl group. Lee also fails to disclose the position of the phenanthryl group attachment.
Takada teaches a monoamine compound which comprise a phenanthryl group [abstract]. Takada further teaches the emission lifetime of a device is improved when it includes a compound comprising a phenathryl group bonded at the 9-position [0102].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 2-36 by changing Rb from phenyl to phenanthryl, because it would have been choosing between the list of aryl options taught by Lee, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the light-emitting layer of the organic light-emitting device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Lee’s Formula 2 having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the phenethryl group in the 9-position, based on the teaching of Takada. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the emission lifetime of a device, as taught by Takada.
The modified version of compound 2-36 (hereinafter “Phenanthryl 2-36”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since it Ar1 in Applicant’s Formula 1 is represented by an unsubstituted phenanthryl in Phenanthryl 2-36 (shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
429
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2022/065762 A1) as applied to claims 1–7, 10, and 12–15 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
Lee teaches when the compound structure does not indicate a substituent will either have hydrogen or deuterium. Lee further teaches the content of deuterium ranges from 0% to 100% [49].
However, Lee fails to disclose a compound like compound 2-36 wherein the content of deuterium is 100%.
Li teaches the carbon-deuterium chemical bond is stronger, more stable, and reacts more slowly than the carbon-hydrogen chemical bond, so that the deuterated organic system has better thermal stability, and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the content of deuterium to 100% in compound 2-36, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the thermal stability and produce an optoelectronic device with a longer lifetime, as taught by Li.
Per Claim 9, the 100% deuterated version of compound 2-36 (hereinafter “Deuterated 2-36”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since
PNG
media_image12.png
32
87
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is represented by
PNG
media_image13.png
57
36
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein each position is substituted with deuterium.
PNG
media_image14.png
382
354
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 11, R1 and R2 are each represented by deuterium in Deuterated 2-36, wherein n1 and n2 are each 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US 2024/0251672 A1) discloses compounds which read on Applicant’s Formula 1.
Cho et al. (US 2024/0389456 A1) discloses compounds which read on Applicant’s Formula 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights