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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 3 to 6 are of poor resolution.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: detail of the synthesis examples are of poor resolution. For example, in Examples 10 and 39 to 41 the text above the arrow is illegible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 it is suggested that "formulaformula(2)" on line 3 be changed to "
in claims 2 and 13 it is suggested that "n3 is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 5" be replaced with "n3 is an integer of 0 to 5" or the like for ease of reading; and
in claims 2 and 13 it is suggested that "n4 is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 5" be replaced with "n4 is an integer of 0 to 5" or the like for ease of reading
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 12, the claims recite the definitions of Ar3 and Ar4 as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
315
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "a linkage side of Ar3 is at a carbon atom of any phenyl ring" and "fused sites of Ar4 are at two ortho carbon atoms of the same phenyl ring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the same phenyl ring" in the claim. Further, it is unclear what "any phenyl ring" refers to. Does "the same phenyl ring" refer to the "any phenyl ring" recited in "a linkage site of Ar3 is at a carbon atom of any phenyl ring"? Or is "the same phenyl ring" referring to any phenyl ring in any of (A-1) to (A-5)? Does this mean that linkage sites of fused ring Ar4 are two carbon atoms ortho to one another on any phenyl ring in any one of formulae (A-1) to (A-5)? Does "any phenyl ring" refer to any phenyl ring in the structures represented by formulae (A-1) to (A-5)?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that a linkage site of Ar3 is at a carbon atom in any phenyl ring in any one of formulae (A-1) to (A-5) and linkage sites of fused ring Ar4 are two carbon atoms ortho to one another in any phenyl ring in any one of formulae (A-1) to (A-5).
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 9-11 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 8.
Claims 13-18 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 12.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 12, the claims recite the definition of integers n1and n2 to be "n0, n1, n2, and n5 are each independently a positive integer selected from the group consisting 0 to 14." First, it appears that the integers n1, n2, and n5 cannot be more than 3, 4, and 12, respectively, based on the structures of formulae (1) and (2), and (b-1) to (B-5). Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how n1, n2, and n5 may ever be more than 3, 4, and 12, respectively. Additionally, the claim recites that they be selected from positive integers. Zero (0) is not a positive integer so it unclear whether or not n0, n1, n2, and n5 may be selected as zero.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that n0 is an integer of 0 to 14, n1 is an integer of 0 to 3, n2 is an integer of 0 to 4, and n5 is an integer of 0 to 12.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 9-11 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 8.
Claims 13-18 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 12.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 12, the claims recite the definition of Ar2 as a structure represented by any one selected from the group consisting of formulae (B-1) to (B-4). While the claims recite how Ar3 and Ar4 link the structure structures (A-1) to (A-5) it remains unclear how (B-1) to (B-4) link to main structure of formulae (1) or (2).
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that a linkage site of Ar2 is at a carbon atom in any one of formulae (B-1) to (B-4).
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 9-11 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 8.
Claims 13-18 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 12.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the substituent groups and their indices of the recited structures are in some cases of poor resolution, rendering the claims indefinite. See for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
283
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where (R2)n2 and (R4)n4 are running together.
For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted to be consistent with the structures in independent claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the formulae (2-27) does not appear to meet either of claimed formulae (1) or (2) therefore the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how all of the compounds of formula (2-27) meet either of claimed formulae (1) or (2) as recites in claim 1 and 8 from which they depend.
For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted such the formula 2-27 is absent.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether the line extending from the nitrogen in the center structure,
PNG
media_image3.png
84
158
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is intended as an attachment point or as a methyl group.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted either way.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is indefinite because the text in the structures, and in some cases the double bonds in the structures, are of poor resolution. See for example:
PNG
media_image4.png
342
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to be consistent with the structures in independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites several chemical structures with groups Et, iPr, tAm, and tBu; however, it is unclear what these groups are meant to represent. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how the claim may be met with respect to chemical structural comprising Et, iPr, tAm, and/or tBu.
For purposes of examination, Et, iPr, tAm, and tBu will be interpreted as ethyl, isopropyl, tert-Amyl, and tert-butyl, respectively.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, the claims recite "ladder-type furan compound"; however, it is unclear what is included in the scope of ladder-type furan compound. The specification does not appear to provide a definitions and this does not appear to be a known term of art. Therefore, if "ladder-type furan compound" is selected as the host material, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted such that any furan-based compound with repeating units would mee the requirements of ladder-type furan compound.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. CN-115724869-A (hereinafter "Song-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Song-MT").
Song et al. CN-115724869-A is cited on the IDS dated 01/12/2024.
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, and 17-18, Song discloses a display panel comprising light-emitting element comprising an organic functional layer located between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the organic functional layer comprises a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a guest material, wherein the guest material is one or more of an organic compound of a general formula (1), and wherein the host material comprises anthracene derivative pyrene derivative, and pentacene derivative phenanthrene compound, fluoranthene compound, carbazole derivative dibenzofuran derivative ladder-type furan compound, pyrimidine derivative (Song-MT, page 4 line 17 to page 5 line 13 and page 2 lines 14-19). Song discloses the mass ratio of the host material and the guest material is 99: 1 to 70: 30 (Song-MT, page 14, line 23). Song discloses the compound improves the material performance, improves the light emitting efficiency of the light emitting element and prolongs the service life of the light emitting element (Song-MT, page 5 lines 14-16). Song discloses the organic compound is a blue luminescent material (Song-MT, page 11, line 27) Song discloses examples of the organic compound of a general formula (1) that meet the claimed formula (1) on at least pages 32 including compound 99
PNG
media_image5.png
181
203
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Song-CN, page 32).
Thus, the display device of Song meets claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, and 17-18.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. WO-2020218079-A1 see equivalent US-20230096132-A1 referred to herein as "Hatakeyama".
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12, 14-15, and 17-18, Hatakeyama discloses a display apparatus or a lighting apparatus comprising an organic electroluminescent element comprising an organic layer disposed between a pair of electrodes and comprising a polycyclic aromatic compound of a general formula (1), wherein the organic layer is a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host and the polycyclic aromatic compound, wherein the host is an anthracene-based compound (¶ [0056], items [26]-[29] and [33], and ¶ [0016], item [1]). Hatakeyama discloses The amount of the host material is from 50 to 99.999% by weight (¶ [0198]). Hatakeyama discloses examples of the polycyclic aromatic compound that meet the claimed formulae (1) or (2) in paragraph [0132] including compound 1-5179
PNG
media_image6.png
365
425
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 477).
Thus, the device of Hatakeyama meets claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12, 14-15, and 17-18.
Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama discloses the device as described above with respect to claim 1.
Hatakeyama appears silent with respect to the property of wherein the polycyclic aromatic compound is a blue-light emitting material. However, compound with significantly similar structure that also fall within Hatakeyama's general formula all emit blue light. Therefore, the property of blue light emission is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
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 5, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. CN-115724869-A (hereinafter "Song-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Song-MT") as applied to claim 1 above.
Song et al. CN-115724869-A is cited on the IDS dated 01/12/2024.
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 16, Song discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Song does not specifically exemplify a compound of the general formula (1) that corresponds to one of the compounds listed in claim 7. For example, the compound 99 of Song differs from the claimed compound 65 in that the alkyl group substituted to the group Ar1 is a t-butyl instead of an isopropyl group and further differs from claimed compound 134 in that the Ar2 group is a triphenylene instead of a 2-dibenzofuranyl group. However, Song teaches that Ar1 may be (A-1) (Song-MT, page 2, line 21) which is a benzene substituted with a substituent R0, teaches that R0 may be a straight-chain alkyl with 1 to 20 carbon atoms, among others (Song-MT, page 2, lines 28-29), teaches examples of a straight-chain alkyl with 1 to 20 carbon atoms includes both t-butyl and isopropyl (Song-MT, page 7, lines 29-34), and exemplifies compounds wherein R0 on Ar1 is an isopropyl group (see for example compound 79 on page 31, Song-CN). Additionally, Song teaches that Ar2 is selected from H and formula (B-1) to formula (B-4) (Song-CN, page 2, line 24), which encompasses a 2-dibenzofuranyl group, and exemplifies compounds wherein Ar2 is a 2-dibenzofuranyl group (see for example compound 158 on page 35, Song-CN).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the R0 t-butyl group for an isopropyl group and optionally to further substitute the Ar2 triphenyl for a 2-dibenzofuranyl group in the compound 99, because Song teaches the variables may suitably be selected as such and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the variables are selected as such. The substitution(s) would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the guest in the emitting layer of the device of Song and possess the beneficial properties of improved light emitting efficiency and prolonged service life of the light emitting element, taught by Song. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound of Song corresponds to the claimed compounds 65 and 134.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. WO-2020218079-A1 see equivalent US-20230096132-A1 referred to herein as "Hatakeyama"
Regarding claim 11, Hatakeyama discloses the device as described above with respect to claim 1.
Hatakeyama does not specifically teach wherein a mass ratio of the host material to the guest material is 99:1 to 70:30. However, Hatakeyama teaches that the amount of the host material is from 50 to 99.999% by weight (¶ [0198]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Hatakeyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amount of the host material that falls within the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hatakeyama et al. WO-2020251049-A1 discloses compounds for use in an organic EL element (Abstract) and discloses compounds such as those on page 33.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights