DETAILED 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 9 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
366
996
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification while being enabling while being enabling for a first compound H1 does not reasonably provide enablement for the unlimited scope of a second compound H2 in claim 9. The specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with claim 9.
The specification while being enabling for the second compound H2 as shown on page 17 of the specification:
PNG
media_image2.png
641
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention for the vast compounds not included by the above limitation commensurate in scope with claim 9.
The genus “compounds” with the following electronic relationships:
wherein min(LUMO(H1)-HOMO(H2), LUMO(H2)-HOMO(H1)) ≤min(Er(H1), ET(H2))+0.1 eV, LUMO(H1), HOMO(H1), and ET(H1) stand for the energy level of the highest occupied molecular orbital, the energy level of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital, and the triplet energy level of the first compound H1, LUMO(H2), HOMO(H2), and ET(H2) stand for the energy level of the highest occupied orbital, the energy level of the lowest unoccupied orbital, and the triplet energy level of the second compound H2.
shows a lack of a scope of enablement to clearly define the material options to meeting the above electronic relationships. No means to determine the types of materials in combination with a first compound H1 are suitable meet the required electronic limitations.
(A) The breadth of the claims far exceeds the written description which is limited only a few examples for the second compound H2.
(B) The nature of the invention as provided by the specification limits the materials to a few classes of organic compounds for which the claims are not so limited.
(C) The state of the prior art is limited in the written description which does not reflect the unlimited scope of the claims.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill in the art without specific guidance would not be deemed to have the know-how to carry out the full scope of the invention as recited in the claims due to a lack of a written description.
(E) The level of predictability in the art is indeterminate as the class or function a second compound H2 in combination with a first compound H1 shows a scope in the claim 9 beyond the written description. How would one determine the class and function of suitable compounds in reasonable search queries?
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor in the selection of compounds suitable to practice the invention at the scope of claim 9 is lacking based on the limited written description.
(G) Working examples are limited to a few examples far beneath the scope of the claims.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is excessive as the claimed scope would be expected to encompass a plethora of compound classes not included in the written description.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to carry out the scope of the invention in the claims.
Therefore, claim 9 and all claims requiring the limitations claim 9 are rejected based on the lack of a clear scope of enablement.
2. Claims 9-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a first compound H1 does not reasonably provide a written description for the second compound H2 for the invention encompassed by the claim 9.
The written description of the second compound H2 does not allow for a determination of the metes and bounds to conduct a comprehensive structure search as said compounds are simply defined as generic with no limiting chemical features. There is no means of determining how the first compound H1 in combination with a second compound meet the required electronic relationships with each other from the factors included in the written description.
The deficiency is further highlighted by the limitations which require specific ratios for HOMO and LUMO values. The specification while offering a small number of examples for a second compound H2 wherein the structural diversity is very limited in comparison to scope of the claim 9. Claim 9 lacks a defined scope fully supported by a written description relative to the class of the compound or the function of the compound. This results in indeterminate structural requirements which does not offer enough support to show that the applicant was in possession of the invention as recited. Therefore, claim 9 and all claims requiring the limitations claim 9 are rejected as lacking a suitable written description.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwong (US 2014/0027734 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-5, Kwong teaches a material represented by Compound 2-12-1 (page 18):
PNG
media_image3.png
352
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 2-12-1 reads on applicants’ Formula 1 and 1-1 wherein Ar1 = phenyl substituted with dibenzothiophene; Ar2-Ar3 are not present; W1= B; Z1 = N; remaining W(s) and Z(s) = C (per claims 1-3).
Ar1 is also considered as a phenylene wherein u =1 (per claim 4).
Dibenzothiophene is known in the art as an electron donating group (per claim 5)
Regarding Claims 14-16, The OLED device may include an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, where the organic layer comprises a boron-nitrogen polyaromatic compound (paragraph 31). The organic layer of the device is an emissive layer. The boron-nitrogen polyaromatic compound is a host (paragraph 33) (per claims 14-16).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kwong (US 2014/0027734 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kwong teaches Compound 2-12-1 (above) which shows the parent fused ring system substituted with a phenylene which is substituted with a dibenzothiophene as an R group. Kwong further teaches the fused ring system is substituted by one or more substituents, R, that are not fused to the aromatic ring system (paragraph 56). Kwong list examples of specific R group (paragraph 60) which includes S-18 which reads on applicants’ D3.
PNG
media_image4.png
126
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The R groups are taught a finite set of options which are viewed as functionally and readily exchangeable, absent unexpected results. The resulting selection of a R group gives an obvious variant of the parent ring system.
Exchanging the dibenzothiophene for the carbazole (both groups listed as R groups) results in an obvious variant containing D3.
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 the fused ring system of Kwong by selecting various functional equivalent R substituents which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Kwong teaches Compound 2-12-1 (above) which shows the parent fused ring system substituted with a phenylene which is substituted with a dibenzothiophene as an R group. Kwong further teaches the fused ring system is substituted by one or more substituents, R, that are not fused to the aromatic ring system (paragraph 56). Kwong list examples of specific R group (paragraph 60) which includes S-22 which reads on applicants’
PNG
media_image5.png
68
60
media_image5.png
Greyscale
:
PNG
media_image6.png
164
282
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The R groups are taught a finite set of options which are viewed as functionally and readily exchangeable, absent unexpected results. The resulting selection of a R group gives an obvious variant of the parent ring system.
Exchanging the dibenzothiophene for the triazine (both groups listed as R groups) results in an obvious variant containing triazine.
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 the fused ring system of Kwong by selecting various functional equivalent R substituents which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected 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 did not show the compounds of claim 8. The closest prior art is Kwong.
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