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
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2018/016786). Copies of the original and a machine translation are included with this Office action.
Claim 1: Park et al. teaches compound P-16, which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
140
98
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 12). This compound anticipates formula 1 of claim 1. As applied to Formula 1, compound P-16 has R1 and R2 equal to phenyl, A equal to an unsubstituted m-phenylene, R3 is equal to a pyridyl-substituted phenyl group, k is equal to 1, B is equal to an unsubstituted m-phenylene, n is equal to 1, R5 is equal to phenyl, and R4 is equal to -L-Har where L is equal to a single bond and Har is equal to an unsubstituted phenanthrobenzofuranyl group, and l and m are equal to zero.
Claim 2: The unsubstituted phenanthrobenzofuranyl group in compound P-16 above anticipates formula (a) with one or R15 being joined to L, and all remaining R12-R15 being equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 4: In compound P-16 above, Har anticipates formula 1-15 with X11 equal to O, all R12 and R14 groups equal to hydrogen atoms, one R15 group being bonded to L, and all other R15 groups being equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 5: In compound P-16 above, n is equal to 1, m is equal to zero, and both A and B is equal to the first formula recites in claim 5 with e equal to 4, and all R’1 equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 6: Claim 6 serves to further limit the optional embodiment where n is equal to zero and m is equal to 1. Because this is not required, Park et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claim 6.
Claim 7: In compound P-16 above, the pyridyl-substituted phenyl group in R3 is a group which anticipates claim 7.
Claim 13: Park et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices which comprise one of the inventive compounds taught therein. This includes compound P-16. As such, the preparation of an organic electroluminescent device as taught in the device examples of Park et al., where compound P-16 is employed, is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claim 13.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2022/0238811).
Claim 1: Park et al. teaches compound P-112, which has the structure,
PNG
media_image2.png
222
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 28). This compound anticipates formula 1 of claim 1. As applied to Formula 1, l and m are equal to zero, R1, R2, and R3 are equal to phenyl, A is equal to a m-phenylene, k is equal to 1, B is equal to a substituted aryl group (a diphenylamino-substituted fluorenyl group), n is equal to 1, R4 is equal to phenyl, R5 is equal to -L-Har where L is a single bond and Har is an unsubstituted phenanthrobenzothiophenyl group.
Claim 2: In compound P-112 above, Har is equal to a group which anticipates formulae (a) and (a-2) where all R12-R14 groups are equal to hydrogen atoms, one R15 is equal to a bond with L, the other R15 groups are equal to hydrogen atoms, and X11 is equal to S.
Claim 4: In compound P-112 above, Har anticipates formula 1-15 with X11 equal to S, all R12 and R14 groups equal to hydrogen atoms, one R15 group being bonded to L, and all other R15 groups being equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 5: In compound P-112 above, n is equal to 1, m is equal to zero, and A is equal to the first formula recites in claim 5 with e equal to 4, and all R’1 equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 6: Claim 6 serves to further limit the optional embodiment where n is equal to zero and m is equal to 1. Because this is not required, Park et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claim 6.
Claim 7: In compound P-112 above, the substituent in the B group is a diphenylamino group which is a arylamino group satisfying claim 7.
Claim 13: Park et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices which comprise one of the inventive compounds taught therein. This includes compound P-112. As such, the preparation of an organic electroluminescent device as taught in the device examples of Park et al., where compound P-16 is employed, is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claim 13.
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 of this title, 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.
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 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0238811), as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 9, 10, and 14: The compounds taught by Park et al., which includes compound P-112, is taught as being a suitable first host material in an emission layer of an organic electroluminescent device. The emission layer is taught by Park et al. as further comprising a second host material which includes those specific compounds P2-1 through P2-152. Compounds P2-1 through P2-64 adhere to formula (2) of claim 9 and compounds P2-3 through P2-8, P2-10 through P2-13, P2-15 through P2-17, P2-19, P2-22 through P2-48, P2-50 through P2-54, and P2-56 through P2-64 satisfying formula (2-1) of claim 10. While Park et al. does not exemplify a single device which satisfies the limitations of claim 9, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have prepared an emission layer comprising any one of the explicitly taught first host materials and any one of the explicitly taught second host materials as taught by Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. This includes embodiments where the first host material is compound P-112 and the second host material is one of the specific compounds recited above. Such a device would satisfy all of the limitations of claims 9 and 10 as well as claim 14.
Claim 11: Regarding claim 11, Park et al. teaches that the second host material includes compounds such as P2-1, P2-2 and P2-49 where all of Ar1 through Ar3 are equal to aryl groups. For the same reasons as claims 9 and 10 above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have employed any combination of a first host material and a second host material as taught by Park et al. with the expectation that any of the combinations disclosed would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, and 12 are objected to 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 specific compounds recited in claims 8 and 12 are novel and unobvious over the prior art. Additionally, claim 3 requires that Har is one of Formulae 1-1 or 1-2, which is also not taught or suggested in the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights