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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US 2022/0081457 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, and 11, Bae teaches an organic light-emitting device having improved efficiency and lifespan by including an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 and 1-1 (abstract; ¶ [0210]). The organic light-emitting device includes an anode, an emission layer, and a cathode, wherein the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 is used in the emission layer, and wherein examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound 20 (¶ [0215] and [0218]; structure on pg. 47).
1-1:
PNG
media_image1.png
257
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
20:
PNG
media_image2.png
271
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 20 fails to read on the claimed General Formula (G1) as it comprises methyl and t-butyl substituents on the phenyl group attached to the pyridine. However, Bae does teach Ar2 is a phenyl group substituted with at least one E2 and E2 may be selected as a C1-C60 alkyl group (as shown in compound 20) or hydrogen, among others (¶ [0028]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Bae, 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 t-butyl group and methyl groups on the phenyl substituent attached to the pyridine ring with hydrogen atoms, because Bae teaches E2 may suitably be selected as hydrogen. The substitution 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 in the device of Bae and possess the benefits taught by Bae. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, 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 hydrogen for E2, because it would have been choosing from a list of groups taught by Bae as suitable for E2, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the device of Bae and possessing the benefits taught by BAE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1-1 having the benefits taught by Bae in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound 20 is reproduced below in comparison the claimed General Formula (G1).
(G1):
PNG
media_image3.png
222
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
modified 20:
PNG
media_image4.png
378
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 20 reads on: the claimed General Formula (G1) wherein R1, R4 to R18, R20, and R22 are each hydrogen, R2 is an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom substituted with three deuterium, R19 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms, and R21 is an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (claims 2-4); R19 reads on the General Formula (R-1) wherein R31 to R35 are each hydrogen (claim 7).
Regarding claims 5-6, 10, and 12, Bae teaches the organic light-emitting device comprising the modified compound 20, as described above with respect to claim 1.
1-1:
PNG
media_image1.png
257
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
modified 20:
PNG
media_image4.png
378
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 20 fails to read on the claimed General Formula (G1) wherein R19 is alkyl. However, Bae does teach Ar1 in Formula 1-1 is a phenyl group substituted with at least one E1 wherein E1 may be selected as a C1-C60 alkyl group and a C6-C60 aryl group, among others (¶ [0026] and [0028]). Bae teaches specific examples of Ar1 comprising two E1 groups wherein each E1 group is a C4 alkyl, as shown in compound 1 (see pg. 44).
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
246
309
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Bae, 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 phenyl group in the location corresponding to the claimed R19 with a t-butyl group, as shown in compound 1, because Bae teaches E1 may suitably be selected as a C4 alkyl group. The substitution 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 in the device of Bae and possess the benefits taught by Bae. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 20 reads on the claimed General Formula (G1) in the same way as described above with respect to claim 1 except wherein R19 is an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (claims 5-6). Additionally, the modified compound 20 reads on the claimed Structural Formula (100) (claims 10 and 12).
Regarding claim 8, Bae teaches the organic light-emitting device comprising the modified compound 20, as described above with respect to claim 1.
The modified compound 20 fails to read on the claimed General Formula (G1) wherein at least one of R18 and R22 is represented by General Formula (R-1). However, Bae does teach Ar1 in Formula 1-1 is a phenyl group substituted with at least one E1 wherein the position of E1 may be present in any location on the phenyl group (¶ [0026]; see Formula 1-1A in ¶ [0082]).
Given the general formula and teachings of Bae, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the modified compound 20 wherein the phenyl group in the meta-position of the phenyl substituent of the benzimidazole ring is moved to the ortho-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Bae’s Formula 1-1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the device of Bae and possess the properties taught by Bae. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified compound 20 reads on the claim General Formula (R-1) wherein R18 is represented by General Formula (R-1) and wherein R31 to R35 are each hydrogen.
Regarding claim 9, Bae teaches the organic light-emitting device comprising the modified compound 20, as described above with respect to claim 1.
The modified compound 20 fails to read on the claimed General Formula (G1) wherein at least one of R18 and R22 is represented by General Formula (R-1). However, Bae does teach Ar1 in Formula 1-1 is a phenyl group substituted with at least one E1 wherein the position of E1 may be present in any location on the phenyl group (¶ [0026]; see Formula 1-1A in ¶ [0082]).
Given the general formula and teachings of Bae, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the modified compound 20 wherein the phenyl group in the meta-position of the phenyl substituent of the benzimidazole ring is moved to the ortho-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Bae’s Formula 1-1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the device of Bae and possess the properties taught by Bae. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified compound 20 fails to read on the claimed General Formula (G1) wherein R12 represents an alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms. However, Bae does teach in Formula 1-1 R20 may be represented by hydrogen or a C1-C60 alkyl group, among others (¶ [0029]). Bae additionally teaches an example of a compound in which R20 is a t-butyl group, and the t-butyl group is positioned in the para-location with respect to the C-Pt bond (see compound 57 on pg. 53).
1-1:
PNG
media_image1.png
257
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
57:
PNG
media_image6.png
265
315
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Bae, 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 hydrogen with t-butyl in the location of R20, as shown in compound 57, because Bae teaches R20 may suitably be selected as a C4 alkyl group. The substitution 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 in the device of Bae and possess the benefits taught by Bae. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 20 reads on the claim General Formula (R-1) wherein R18 is represented by General Formula (R-1) and wherein R31 to R35 are each hydrogen, and R12 represents an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights