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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 of C. Oh, et.al, US 18/356,509 (07/21/2023) are pending, under examination on merits and rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 11/08/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0148137 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because a few structures of the claimed species is not clear enough to be recognized, for example,
PNG
media_image1.png
342
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is required to provide clear structure for each and every claimed species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend on respectively, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Claim 21 is depending on claim 9 that limits the claimed compound has a structure of the Formula 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
722
1113
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein, Y1, CY2, CY3, CY41, CY42, and CY6 are each independently a C5-C60 carbocyclic group or a C1-C60 heterocyclic group.
The claimed species 77 in claim 21 has a structure as indicated below. Wherein, the CY3 is not a ring, thus, it cannot further limit of claim 9, rather, it extending the scope of claim 9.
The structure of Formula 1 in claim 9 clearly indicates that CY1 is a monocyclic group. The each CY1 in the species of 161-240 of claim 21 is naphthalene that is a fused bicyclic group, therefore, claim 21 further extending but further limit of claim 9.
PNG
media_image3.png
319
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
329
469
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over T. Hatakeyama, et al, US20200190115A1 (2020) (“Hatakeyama”).
T. Hatakeyama, et al, US20200190115A1 (2020) (“Hatakeyama”)
Hatakeyama teaches a novel polycyclic aromatic compound having a plurality of aromatic rings linked by a boron atom, a nitrogen atom, and the like, which can be used as a material for an organic electroluminescent (EL) device; and an organic EL device comprising the novel polycyclic aromatic compound. Hatakeyama at abstract.
Hatakeyama teaches that the novel polycyclic aromatic compound represented by the following general formula (2).
PNG
media_image5.png
360
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama at page 3, left col. [0035].
Hatakeyama teaches that:
Z1 and Z2 in the general formula (2) each independently represent an aryl, a heteroaryl, a diarylamino, a diheteroarylamino, an arylheteroarylamino, an alkyl, an aryloxy, a heteroaryloxy, an arylthio, or a heteroarylthio.
Hatakeyama at page 14, left col. [0098], emphasis added.
Hatakeyama teaches that:
Specific examples of the “aryl ring” include: a benzene ring which is a monocyclic system; a biphenyl ring which is a bicyclic system; a naphthalene ring which is a fused bicyclic system; a terphenyl ring (m-terphenyl, o-terphenyl, or p-terphenyl) which is a tricyclic system; an acenaphthylene ring, a fluorene ring, a phenalene ring, and a phenanthrene ring which are fused tricyclic systems; a triphenylene ring, a pyrene ring, and a naphthacene ring which are fused tetracyclic systems; and a perylene ring and a pentacene ring which are fused pentacyclic system.
Hatakeyama at page 14, left col. [0100], emphasis added.
Hatakeyama teaches specific examples of the novel polycyclic aromatic compound such as 1-114, 1-117 and 1-2001.
PNG
media_image6.png
1455
2060
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama at page 52 for 1-114, page 53 for 1-117, and page 149 for 1-2001.
Thus, per compounds 1-114 and 1-117, Hatakeyama teaches one ordinary skill that the a fluorene ring used in the compound of the general Formula (2) can be
PNG
media_image7.png
469
859
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per FIG 1., Hatakeyama teaches the structure of an organic devices containing the novel polycyclic aromatic compound as indicated below.
PNG
media_image8.png
839
811
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama at Fig.1.
Hatakeyama teaches the structure of the organic devices includes:
a substrate 101,
a positive electrode 102 provided on the substrate 101,
a hole injection layer 103 provided on the positive electrode 102,
a hole transport layer 104 provided on the hole injection layer 103,
a light emitting layer 105 provided on the hole transport layer 104,
an electron transport layer 106 provided on the light emitting layer 105,
an electron injection layer 107 provided on the electron transport layer 106,
and a negative electrode 108 provided on the electron injection layer 107.
Hatakeyama at page 252, [0144], emphasis added.
Regarding the light emitting layer 105, Hatakeyama teaches that the light emitting layer 105 comprises a host material and a dopant material. Hatakeyama at page 254, [0162], line 3-4. The a dopant material can be the novel polycyclic aromatic compound. Hatakeyama at page 254, [0161].
Regarding the dopant sensitizer, Hatakeyama teaches that an assist dopant material can be used with dopant material; the use amounts of a host material, the assist dopant material, and a dopant material are usually 40 to 99.999% by weight, 59 to 1% by weight, and 20 to 0.001% by weight, respectively with respect to the entire material for a light emitting layer. Hatakeyama at page 255, [0166].
Hatakeyama further teaches working examples such as Example 5 which is an organic element using compound 1-2001 as dopant. Hatakeyama at page 318, Example 5.
The Hatakeyama compound 1-114 maps the Formula 1 in the independent claim 1 and claim 9 as indicated below:
PNG
media_image9.png
1134
1961
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The Hatakeyama compound 1-2001 maps the Formula 1 in the independent claim 1 and claim 9 as indicated below:
PNG
media_image10.png
963
1595
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Difference between Hatakeyama and the Claims
Hatakeyama differs from the instant claims in that:
(i).The X11 and X21 in Hatakeyama compound 1-114 all are NR8 wherein the R8 is a position isomer of the claimed Formula 2 in claims 1 and 9;
(ii). The Hatakeyama compound 1-2001 differs from the species 318 in claim 21 in that the diarylamino group
PNG
media_image11.png
299
219
media_image11.png
Greyscale
is not the claimed aryl group
PNG
media_image12.png
245
294
media_image12.png
Greyscale
as indicated below.
PNG
media_image13.png
693
2232
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Obvious Rational of the Claims
It would have been prima facie obvious for one skilled artisan to arrive at the instantly claimed inventions based on the teachings from Hatakeyama with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Obviousness of a claimed compound can be supported where there is motivation to substitute particular chemical moieties in a prior art compound for others so as to arrive at a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B). For example, in the pharmaceutical arts, the rational is stated as motivation to select a known compound and also motivation to structurally modify the selected compound in a particular way to achieve a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) (see for example, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) Example 9, citing Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Obvious Rational of Claims 1-21
One of ordinary skill is motivated to select Hatakeyama’s compound 1-2001 for further investigation because Hatakeyama discloses it as an example of the Formula 2 and it can be used as a dopant for an organic element for an organic device.
Having selected Hatakeyama’s compound 1-2001, one of ordinary skill is motivated to substitute both of the diarylamino groups
PNG
media_image11.png
299
219
media_image11.png
Greyscale
with an aryl group such as a fluorene group
PNG
media_image12.png
245
294
media_image12.png
Greyscale
as follows thereby arriving at the species 318 in claim 21 which falls within the chemical genera of instant claims 1 and 9-10, therefore, claims 9-10 and 21 are obvious.
PNG
media_image14.png
1673
1354
media_image14.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skill is motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because
(i). Hatakeyama teaches that aryl group is an alternative of a diarylamino for the Z1 and Z2 in the general formula (2). (See Hatakeyama at page 14, left col. [0098]);
(ii). Hatakeyama teaches that aryl group can be a fluorene ring. (see Hatakeyama at page 14, left col. [0100]) and
(iii). Hatakeyama teaches that fluorene ring used in the compound of the general Formula (2) can be
PNG
media_image7.png
469
859
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
With regards the connection position of the fluorene ring to the core structure of the proposed compound, one ordinary skill would arrive at the claimed position through “obvious to try” given there is a finite number position in the fluorene ring can be connected to the core structure. MPEP 2143. I. (E).
The rational supporting the modification is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143. I. (B).
Claim 1-4 are obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to use the proposed compound as a dopant material to form an organic devices as taught by Hatakeyama, thus arrive at a device comprising:
a substrate 101,
a positive electrode 102 provided on the substrate 101,
a hole injection layer 103 provided on the positive electrode 102,
a hole transport layer 104 provided on the hole injection layer 103,
a light emitting layer 105 comprising the proposed compound and a host material provided on the hole transport layer 104,
an electron transport layer 106 provided on the light emitting layer 105,
an electron injection layer 107 provided on the electron transport layer 106,
and a negative electrode 108 provided on the electron injection layer 107.
which meets each and every limitation of claims 1-4, therefore, claims 1-4 are obvious.
Claims 5-6 are obvious because one ordinary skill is also motivated to further modify the proposed device by including an assist dopant material in the light emitting layer 105, wherein the amounts of a host material, the assist dopant material, and a dopant material are usually 40 to 99.999% by weight, 59 to 1% by weight, and 20 to 0.001% by weight, respectively with respect to the entire material for a light emitting layer as taught by Hatakeyama. Hatakeyama at page 255, [0166]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. I. Herein, each of the claimed ranges of 50% to 90%, 10% to 30% and 0.1% to 5% overlaps the prior art ranges of 40% to 99.99%, 1% to 59% and 0.001% to 20% respectively, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 7-8 are obvious because Hatakeyama teaches that element comprising the proposed compound can be used as a part for a display apparatus or a lighting apparatus. Hatakeyama at page 10, Item. 17 and page 31, [0632], Industrial applicability. One ordinary skill is also motivated to include a touch screen layer for the display apparatus comprising the proposed compound.
Claims 11 and 15 are obvious because X11, X12, X21 and X22 in the proposed compound are O or NR8, wherein R8 is a phenyl group.
Claim 12-14 are obvious because Z1 and Z2, which maps the R1 and R2 in claim 9 and R12 and R22 in claim 10 respectively, in the proposed compound is a group represented by the Formula 2 in the instant claim 9.
Claim 16 is obvious because one ordinary skill is also motivated to further modify the proposed compound by substitution of the hydrogen atom(s) of CY3 with an alkyl group such as methyl group as indicated below thus arrive at the claimed compound.
PNG
media_image15.png
572
2348
media_image15.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skill is motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Hatakeyama teaches that in the general Formula (2):
[0046] R1 and R2 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, an alkyl having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, or an aryl having 6 to 12 carbon atoms.
Hatakeyama at page 3, [0046], emphasis added.
Claim 17 is obvious because the moiety of
PNG
media_image12.png
245
294
media_image12.png
Greyscale
in the proposed compound maps the Formula 2A as each of R61-R64 and R71-R73 are hydrogen atoms and each of R51-R52 are methyl groups.
Claims 18 and 20 are obvious because one ordinary skill is also motivated to modify Hatakeyama’s compound 1-2001 by replacing the
PNG
media_image11.png
299
219
media_image11.png
Greyscale
moieties with
PNG
media_image16.png
379
398
media_image16.png
Greyscale
as indicated below as Hatakeyama teaches that a aryl group used in the compound of the general Formula (2) can be
PNG
media_image7.png
469
859
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
PNG
media_image17.png
1673
1165
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is obvious because one ordinary skill is also motivated to further modify the above proposed compound by bonding of the two phenyl groups to form a fluorene group as indicated below thus arrive at the claimed compound.
PNG
media_image18.png
688
2971
media_image18.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skill has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Hatakeyama teaches that “a polycyclic aromatic compound having an extended n-conjugated system generally has excellent redox stability”. Hatakeyama at page 1, [0006], line 20-22. By bonding of the two phenyl groups to form another fluorene group can extend n-conjugated system of the compound and enhance redox stability.
Second Obvious Rational of Claims 1-11, 16-18 and 20
One of ordinary skill is motivated to select Hatakeyama’s compound 1-114 for further investigation because Hatakeyama discloses it as an example of the Formula 2 and it can be used as a dopant for an organic element for an organic device.
Having selected Hatakeyama’s compound 1-114, one of ordinary skill is motivated to modify the compound through isomerization as indicated below, thus arrive at a compound falling within the chemical genera of instant claims 1 and 9-10.
PNG
media_image19.png
1052
2464
media_image19.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skill has a motivation to do this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because 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. MPEP 2144.09. II.
Claims 9-10 are obvious because the proposed compound falling within the chemical genera of instant claims 1 and 9-10.
Claims 1-8 are obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to use the proposed compound as a dopant material to form an organic devices as taught by Hatakeyama as detail discussed above.
Claim 11 is obvious because each of the X11, X12, X21 and X22 in the proposed compound is NR8, wherein the R8 is a phenyl group or is a
PNG
media_image16.png
379
398
media_image16.png
Greyscale
group.
Claim 16 is obvious because one ordinary skill is also motivated to further modify the proposed compound by substitution of the hydrogen atom with an alkyl group such as methyl group indicated below thus arrive at the claimed compound.
PNG
media_image20.png
798
2622
media_image20.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skill is motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Hatakeyama teaches that in the general Formula (2):
[0046] R1 and R2 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, an alkyl having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, or an aryl having 6 to 12 carbon atoms.
Hatakeyama at page 3, [0046], emphasis added.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are obvious because the moiety of
PNG
media_image16.png
379
398
media_image16.png
Greyscale
in the proposed compound maps the Formula 2A as each of R61-R64 and R71-R73 are hydrogen atoms and each of R51-R52 are phenyl groups.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 7:20 am-5:20 pm Eastern on Monday to Thursday.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached on 571-270-5993. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1622
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692