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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the compound shown below wherein m is 1, in the reply filed on 06/04/2025 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/04/2025.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not identify this material. As no claims are drawn to this species alone, the search was broadened in order to identify an examinable species supported by the instant claims and/or specification. By way of amendment, the previously identified examinable has been canceled and therefore a new examinable species was identified as follows: a compound of formula II wherein n is 1, R1 is a dibenzofuran and R2 to R6 are each phenyl.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 16, 22-25, 28-30 and 32-33 are drawn to the elected species with claims 4, 7, 10, 17, 34 and 35 withdrawn as being drawn to an unexamined species.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6, 9, 16, 18, 22, 23, 25, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al (JP 2003109759) (Hasegawa) in view of Okida et al (JP 2005281563) (Okida).
It is noted that when utilizing JP 2003109759 and JP 2005281563, the disclosures of the reference are based on the machine translation made of record because the references are published in the Japanese language. The machine translation may have been paraphrased in attempt to correct obvious mistranslation and syntax errors.
In reference to claim 1, 6, 9, 16, 18 and 30, Hasegawa teaches a compound of formula 1 as shown below,
PNG
media_image2.png
361
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for example wherein in the formula (1), n is 4 (Hasegawa [0008]), each Ark is a phenyl group, one Ark’ is a heteroaryl group and each other Ark’ is a phenyl group (Hasegawa [0014]-[0016]).
Hasegawa discloses the compound of formula 1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula (1), n is 4, each Ark is a phenyl group, one Ark’ is a heteroaryl group and each other Ark’ is a phenyl group. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hasegawa are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formulas (1) to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hasegawa and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hasegawa does not expressly state that the heterocyclic group of Ak’ is, e.g. a benzofurans or dibenzofuran as instantly claimed but teaches that it has a total of 5 to 14 carbon atoms and heteroatoms, is preferably an aromatic heterocyclic group containing at least one of a nitrogen atom, an oxygen atom and a sulfur atom and gives examples including furyl, thienyl, indolyl carbazolyl, ‘and the like’ (Hasegawa [0017]). The ordinarily skilled artisan would immediately recognize dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene to be an aromatic heterocyclic group containing a total of 5 to 14 carbon atoms and heteroatoms that meet the teaching of furyl, thienyl, carbazolyl and the like.
Furthermore, with respect to the difference, Okida teaches in analogous art arylsilane materials comprising disilyl bonds that are substituted with aryl or heteroaryl groups for use in organic electronics such as electroluminescent devices and exemplifies heteroaryl groups including many of the groups exemplified by Hasegawa and further including benzofuran, dibenzofuran, benzothiophene and dibenzothiophene (Okida [7]-[9]; [16]). It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan before the filing of the instant application to have selected dibenzofuran as the heteroaryl group for use in the material of Hasegawa in the absence of unexpected results from such a selection.
That is, the substitution of the dibenzofuran of Okida for the furyl, thienyl, carbazolyl and the like of Hasegawa, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of preparing a material for an organic electroluminescent device. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
For Claim 1: Reads on formula II wherein n is 1, one of R1 to R8 is dibenzofuran and the rest is phenyl.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein R1 to R8 are each aryl or heteroaryl.
For Claim 9: Reads on wherein one of R1 to R8 is
PNG
media_image3.png
61
107
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein X is O and each other is
PNG
media_image4.png
61
67
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 16: Reads on
PNG
media_image5.png
147
173
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein X is O.
For Claim 30: Reads on a formulation comprising the compound of formula II wherein n is 1, one of R1 to R8 is dibenzofuran and the rest is phenyl.
For Claim 32: Reads on heteroaryl and aryl.
For Claim 33: Reads on dibenzofuran.
In reference to claim 22, Hasegawa in view of Okida teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the compound is included in an organic electroluminescent device having an organic light emitting layer and an organic carrier transporting layer between a cathode and an anode wherein one of the organic layers comprises the compound (Hasegawa [0007]). Hasegawa does not describe a discrete device example comprising this exact material.
However, given that Hasegawa discloses the device that encompasses the presently claimed device, including an anode, a cathode, and an organic light emitting layer and an organic carrier transporting layer between a cathode and an anode wherein one of the organic layers comprises the compound, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use device configuration, which is both disclosed by Hasegawa and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 22: Reads on the claimed device structure comprising a compound of formula II wherein n is 1, one of R1 to R8 is dibenzofuran and the rest is phenyl.
In reference to Claim 23, Hasegawa in view of Okida teaches the device as described above for claim 22 and further teaches that the material of formula (1) is used in the light emitting layer as a conductive compound in combination with another emitting material (Hasegawa [0027]). Hasegawa does not describe a discrete device example comprising this exact material.
However, given that Hasegawa discloses the that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the compound of formula (1) is used in the light emitting material as a conductive compound in combination with another emitting material, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device structure, which is both disclosed by Hasegawa and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hasegawa does not expressly state that the material is used as a host. However, given the description of Hasegawa it is clear that the ‘conductive compound’ is capable of functioning as such and recitation of a specific name for the materials role does not distinguish the device structure. Furthermore, the claimed and prior art device structures are identical. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 25, Hasegawa in view of Okida teaches the device as described above for claim 22 including wherein the compound of formula (1) is included in an organic carrier transporting layer.
Reads on wherein the layer is a transporting layer that includes the compound.
In reference to claim 28, Hasegawa in view of Okida teaches the device as described above for claim 22 including wherein the compound of formula (1) is included in an organic light emitting layer.
While Hasegawa does not expressly state that the compound is a delayed fluorescent emitter, the compound is identical in structure to the instantly claimed compound. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
Claims 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Okida and further in view of Miura et al (JP 2013048190) (Miura).
In reference to claims 24, Hasegawa in view of Okida teaches devices for example as described above for claim 23 comprising another material in the light emission material that emits light.
Hasegawa in view of Okida does not expressly teach that the material is a transition metal complex as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Miura teaches a phosphorescent dopant for use in an organic light emitting device for example the compound D-1 (Miura [0046]) as shown below and further teaches that the use of this compound as a dopant in the light emitting layer of a device improves luminous efficiency and device lifetime (Miura [0018].
PNG
media_image6.png
145
258
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the light emitting dopant D-1 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the dopant D-1 as described by Miura in the light emitting layer of the device of Hasegawa in view of Okida in order to improve luminous efficiency and device lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 24: Reads on an iridium complex comprising a ligand
PNG
media_image7.png
255
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein each of X1 to X11 is a carbon, Rb represents tri substitution and is alkyl or a combination of aryl and alkyl groups.
In reference to claim 29, Hasegawa in view of Okida and Miura teaches a device as described above for claim 24 and further teaches that such OLED devices are useful in various consumer products including large screen displays and lighting etc. (Miura [0104]). Hasegawa in view of Okida and Miura does not exemplify such a device.
However, given that Hasegawa in view of Okida and Miura discloses the device that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein it is employed as a consumer product including a large screen display or lighting product, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device type, which is both disclosed by Hasegawa in view of Miura and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jennifer A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights