27DETAILED ACTION
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) 16-17, 20, 22, 24-26, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 2017/0342057 A1) in view of Yokoyama (US 2013/0112950 A1).
Regarding Claims 16-17, 20, 22, Shim teaches a material represented by F-207 (page 59):
PNG
media_image1.png
480
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F-207 shows R1 = carbazole; R2 and R3 = H; R4 = biphenyl; R5 = phenyl (per claims 16-17, 20, 22), but fails to show deuterium atom(s).
The prior art as exemplified by Yokoyama notes a high-efficient organic EL device is obtained by using a deuterium atom-substituted carbazole compound as the material of the light emitting layer (paragraph 17). Yokoyama’s evaluation of deuterium substituted compounds showed improve heat resistance and thin-film stability (paragraph 114).
The office views the above as strong incentives to incorporate deuterium into a carbazole based materials with the expectation of achieving a high-efficient organic EL device with added heat resistance and thin-film stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have incorporated deuterium into the carbazole compounds of Shim (which reads on the instant limitations ) based on the teachings of Yokoyama, absent unexpected results (per claims 16-17, 20, 22).
Regarding Claims 24-26, 30, Shim teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising at least one light-emitting layer between an anode and a cathode, wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a host and a phosphorescent dopant; the host includes Shim’ generic Formula 1 which can be represented a R-207 (per claims 24-25) (paragraph 8).
The phosphorescent dopant can be represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
320
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 294) (per claim 26).
The host and dopant in the light emitting layer are viewed as a formulation (per claim 30).
.
Regarding Claim 18, Shim and Yokoyama teach the invention of claim 16. Shim teaches F-207 which reads on applicants’ Formula 1, but fails to show R3 as substituted. F-207 is derived from Generic 21 (page 7):
.
PNG
media_image3.png
288
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
526
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The office notes that X4 in F-207 = H. X4 encompasses a finite set of substituents which are regarded as functionally equivalent which upon selections gives rise to obvious variants of Generic 21, absent unexpected results.
One such variant reading on the instant claim shows a modification of F-207 wherein H of X4 (R3) is replaced with an aryl group.
A deuterium derivative of said variant is also envisaged based on the above treatment of claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of Generic 21 by selecting from various functional equivalent substituents of X4 (R3) which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 18).
Regarding Claim 19, Shim teaches R-207 which is a positional isomer to applicants’ Formula II differs from applicants’ Formula II in that the carbazole group is attached one bond over. R-207 is derived from Generic 21. Generic 21 is encompassed by a positional isomer of Generic 6 (page 3):
PNG
media_image5.png
220
704
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Z= = N-R; L1 = single bond; n = 0.
The office notes that the point of attachment of the carbazole group is one bond over which is the same as applicants’ Formula II
Position isomers are a basic form of close “structural isomers.” MPEP 2144.09, second paragraph, states, “Compounds which are position isomers … are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” It is well established that position isomers are prima facie structurally obvious even in the absence of a teaching to modify. The isomer is expected to be preparable by the same method and to have generally the same properties. This expectation is then deemed the motivation for preparing the position isomers. This circumstance has arisen many times. See: Ex parte Englehardt, 208 USPQ 343, 349 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1980); In re Mehta, 146 USPQ 284, 287 (C.C.P.A. 1965); In re Surrey, 138 USPQ 67 (C.C.P.A. 1963); Ex Parte Ullyot, 103 USPQ 185 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1952); In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (C.C.P.A. 1950); Ex Parte Naito, 168 USPQ 437, 439 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1969); Ex parte Allais, 152 USPQ 66 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1965); In re Wilder, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (C.C.P.A. 1970); Ex parte Henkel, 130 USPQ 474 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1960); Ex parte Biel, 124 USPQ 109 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1958); In re Petrzilka, 165 USPQ 327 (C.C.P.A. 1970); In re Crounse, 150 USPQ 554 (C.C.P.A. 1966); In re Fouche, 169 USPQ 429 (C.C.P.A. 1971); Ex parte Ruddy, 121 USPQ 427 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1955); In re Wiechert, 152 USPQ 247 (C.C.P.A. 1967), In re Shetty, 195 USPQ 753 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Jones, 74 USPQ 152, 154 (C.C.P.A. 1947); and In re Mayne, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997) {in which the Court took notice of the extreme similarity between the amino acids Leucine and isoleucine: “In fact, Leu is an isomer of Ile -- an identical chemical formula with differences only in the chemical bonding of the atoms. The side chains…of Leu and Ile have the same number of hydrogen and carbon atoms…The structure of Leu and Ile alone suggest their functional equivalency” (at pages 1454-1455)}.
For example, “Position isomerism has been used as a tool to obtain new and useful drugs” (Englehardt) and “Position isomerism is a fact of close structural similarity” (Mehta, emphasis in the original). Note also In re Jones, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), which states at 1943 “Particular types or categories of structural similarity without more, have, in past cases, given rise to prima facie obviousness”; one of those listed is “adjacent homologues and structural isomers”. Position isomers are the basic form of close “structural isomers.” Similar is In re Schechter and LaForge, 98 USPQ 144, 150 (C.C.P.A. 1953), which states “a novel useful chemical compound which is homologous or isomeric with compounds of the prior art is unpatentable unless it possesses some unobvious or unexpected beneficial property not possessed by the prior art compounds.” Note also In re Deuel 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995) which states, “Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds … a known compound may suggest its analogs or isomers, either geometric isomers (cis v. trans) or position isomers (e.g., ortho v. para).” See also MPEP 2144.09, second paragraph.
Therefore, nothing unobvious is seen in substituting the known isomer R-207 for the structurally similar “one bond over isomer”, as taught by Shim, since such structurally related compounds suggest one another and would be expected to share common properties absent a showing of unexpected results. In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (C.C.P.A. 1950).
A deuterium derivative of said positional isomer is also envisaged based on the above treatment of claim 16. (per claim 19).
Regarding Claims 31-32 , Shim teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising at least one light-emitting layer between an anode and a cathode, wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a host and a phosphorescent dopant; the host includes Shim’ generic Formula 1which can be represented a R-207 (per claims 24-25) (paragraph 8). R-207 as a positional isomer of applicants’ Formula II was addressed above (per claim 31). The light-emitting layer containing the host, a positional isomer of R-207, and a phosphorescent dopant are viewed as a formulation.
A deuterium derivative of said variant is also envisaged based on the above treatment of claim 16 (per claims 24-25 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 21, Shim teaches R-207 which shows R4 = biphenyl; R5 = phenyl. As mentioned above R-207 is derived from Generic 21 wherein R4 and R5 are represented as A1 and A3. Shim fails to mention how A3 is defined. The office takes that position A1 and A3 are functionally equivalent positions (absent unexpected results) inclusive of Aryl C6-C30 (paragraph 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected R4 and R5 from options from the aryl range of C6-C30 which would have included R4 and R5 as C6 (phenyl) which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results.
A deuterium derivative of said variant is also envisaged based on the above treatment of claim 16 (per claim 21).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 2017/0342057 A1) in view of Yokoyama (US 2013/0112950 A1) and
in view of Cosimbescu (US 2005/0089715).
Regarding Claim 29, Shim in view if Yokoyama teaches the device of claim 24 but fails to mention incorporation into a consumer product.
Cosimbescu teaches OLEDs can be used in a display device and a lighting device (paragraph 14).
As both Shim in view if Yokoyama and Cosimbescu teach OLEDs and Cosimbescu teaches OLEDs can be used in a display device and a lighting device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used the OLED of Shim in view if Yokoyama in known application areas which would have included incorporation into a lighting device which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 29).
Allowable Subject Matter I
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to show:
Formula 1 as transporting material (per claim 27)
Allowable Subject Matter II
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter as applicant claims the compounds of claim 23 and the device of claim 33.
The prior art fails to teach the compounds of claim 23 and the device of claim 33.
Clams 23, 33 and 36 allowed.
Response to Amendments
New art applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights