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 § 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 2022/0050825) (Kim).
In reference to claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12, Kim teaches a material of formula 103 as shown below for use in an organic light emitting device (Kim [0152] abstract, throughout)
PNG
media_image1.png
234
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 103, X1 is O, R4 is connected to L1, n1 is 1, L1 is a direct bond Ar1 is an unsubstituted pyrene, and R1 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group and each other R group is hydrogen.
Kim discloses the compound of formula 103 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula 103, X1 is O, R4 is connected to L1, n1 is 1, L1 is a direct bond Ar1 is an unsubstituted pyrene, and R1 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group and each other R group is hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compounds of formula 103.
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 formula 103 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1 wherein L11 is a direct bond, e* is bonded to R108, L12 is a bond, Ar12 is 10 naphthyl, p is 1, q is 0, a is bonded at R103 and B is bonded at R104 and each other R is hydrogen.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula 10.
For Claim 3: Reads on formula 11.
For Claim 4: Reads on R105 bonded to f.
For Claim 6: Reads on a is bonded at R103 and B is bonded at R104.
For Claim 7: Reads on 2 fused rings.
For Claim 8: Reads on hydrogen.
For Claim 9: Reads on hydrogen.
For Claim 11: Reads on naphthyl.
For Claim 12: Reads on single bond.
In reference to claim 13-21, Kim teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches it is used in an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer between them and comprising the compound of formula 103 and a compound of formula 2 as shown below and wherein the light emitting layer includes a first and second layer and each comprise a dopant, the triplet energy of the compound of formula 103 is higher than the triplet energy of the compound of formula 2, the compound emits light between 400 and 500 nm, and the device further comprises a hole injection layer comprising an aryl amine compound and an electron injection layer comprising a triazine compound (Kim [0006] [0010] [0020] [0247] [0182] to [0185] [0309] [0313]).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim further teaches that the device taught therein results in a low driving voltage, excellent efficiency and lifespan (Kim [0028]). While Kim does not exemplify a device of this exact configuration, each of the components are taught as preferred options for the structure of the device of Kim and the ordinarily skilled artisan would expect based on the teachings of Kim that such a combination would result in a device with comparable properties.
In reference to claim 5 and 10, Kim teaches a material of formula 101 as shown below for use in an organic light emitting device (Kim [0152] abstract, throughout)
PNG
media_image3.png
210
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 101, X1 is O, R4 is connected to L1, n1 is 1, L1 is a direct bond Ar1 is an unsubstituted pyrene, and R1 is a phenyl substituted naphthyl group and each other R group is hydrogen.
Kim discloses the compound of formula 101 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula 101, X1 is O, R4 is connected to L1, n1 is 1, L1 is a direct bond Ar1 is an unsubstituted pyrene, and R1 is a phenyl substituted naphthyl group and each other R group is hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compounds of formula 101.
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 formula 101 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al (US 2021/0083193) (Tasaki).
In reference to claim 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-21, Tasaki teaches a device of example 16 comprising a compound BH1-16 as shown below as a host compound in a light emitting layer between an anode and cathode wherein there is a second emitting layer comprising a host and a dopant wherein the host is a BH2 as shown below and comprising hole transport layer comprising a material HT2 as shown below and an electron transport layer comprising material ET1 as shown below where the emission is ~460 nm (Tasaki [1137] to [1157] p. 444).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
148
318
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
262
292
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
344
486
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Tasaki does not expressly require the positional configuration as exemplified in this material wherein the pyrene group(s) are attached at these positions on the benzonaphthofuran group and exemplifies other materials with different attachment points. Furthermore, it is noted that compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) 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). In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound presently claimed, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 15, Tasaki teaches the device as described above for claim 13. Tasaki does not expressly teach that the host compounds have the claimed relationships of triplet energy. However, triplet energy is an inherent property of a materials. 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. 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).
Conclusion
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