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 1-20 of H. Kim, et al., US 18/478,518 (09/29/2023) are pending. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected Group. Claims 7-20 are under examination on merits. Claims 7-11 and 13-20 are rejected, claim 12 is objected to.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group II, without traverse, in the reply filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 1-6 drawn to Group (I) are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). The restriction requirement is made as FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is 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.
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 7-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by J. S. Hong, et al, KR20170090942A (2017)(“Hong”). Hong is published in Korean, a copy of machine translation is attached as the second part of the reference, which results in the total page of the full reference is 49, the format for citation of the reference is xx /49.
Hong teaches a compound 23 that has a chemical structure as indicated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hong at page 27/49, Synthetic example 7: Synthesis of Compound 23.
The compound 23 has the same chemical structure as that of the claimed species 41 in the instant claim 20, which maps the Formula 1 in claims 7-11, 13-16 and 18-19 as:
Each of a1 and a2 is 0, each of L1 and L2 is a bond;
Each of R1 and R2 is phenyl,
a3 is 1, L3 is phenyl;
R39 is phenyl;
Each of X31,X33-X35 and X37-X38 is CH and
Each X32 and X36 is N.
Which meets each and every limitation of claims 7-11, 13-16 and 18-20, therefore, claims 7-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are anticipated.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
754
media_image2.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 7-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S. Y. Lee, et al, WO2011055912A1(2011)(“Lee”) in view of J. S. Hong, et al, KR20170090942A (2017)(“Hong”).
S. Y. Lee, et al, WO 2011055912 A1 (2011)(“Lee”)
Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 that can be used as a host material for an OLED.
PNG
media_image3.png
321
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee at page 2-3, [8]-[12], emphasis added. Lee teaches example compounds of the Chemical Formula 1, such as compounds 19, 20, 28 and 31 with structures as indicated below. Lee at page 7, [38] for compound 19-20, [40] for compound 28 and [41] for compound 31.
PNG
media_image4.png
1644
1599
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee compounds compound 28 maps the Formula 1 in the instant claim 7-as:
Each of a1 and a2 is 0, each of L1 and L2 is a bond;
Each of R1 and R2 is phenyl,
a3 is 1, L3 is phenyl;
R39 is phenyl;
b3 is 1, R40 is phenyl;
Each of X31-X32, X34 and X35-X36, X38 is CH;
X33 is CR33 wherein, R33 is phenyl; and
X37 is CR37 wherein, R37 is phenyl.
Difference between Lee and the instant Claim 7
Lee compound 28 differs from the instant claim 7 only in that there is no least one of X31-X38 is N as claimed by the instant claim 7.
PNG
media_image5.png
919
878
media_image5.png
Greyscale
J. S. Hong, et al, KR20170090942A (2017)(“Hong”)
Hong is published in Korean, a copy of machine translation is attached as the second part of the reference, which results in the total page of the full reference is 49, the format for citation of the reference is xx /49.
Hong teaches an organic compound capable of implementing high efficiency and long lasting organic optoelectronic devices and the organic compound represented by the following formula (1). Hong at page 33/49, line 19-24 and page 3/49 for the structure of formula (1), emphasis added. Hong teaches that the organic compound formula (1) may be represented by the following formula (1a).
PNG
media_image6.png
140
225
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hong at page 36/49, paragraph 11 and page 4/49 for the structure of formula (1a).
Hong teaches example compounds such as compound 3, 27, 31 with structures as indicated below.
PNG
media_image7.png
818
2422
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hong at page 17/49, [0086] for compound 3, at page 18/49, [0092] for compound 27 and [0093] for compound 31.
After comparing the structures of Lee compounds 19, 20, 31 with the Hong compounds 31, 27 and 3 respectively, one ordinary skill would be appraised that the moiety of
PNG
media_image8.png
214
307
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in Lee compound can be replace by
PNG
media_image9.png
214
336
media_image9.png
Greyscale
as indicated below.
PNG
media_image10.png
2155
1924
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Hong also teaches an OLED made with the example compound 3 as a host compound, which exhibits improved characteristics in terms of driving voltage, luminous efficiency and / or power efficiency. Hong at page 48/49-49/49, Example 2 to 12.
Obviousness Rationales of the Claims 7-11 and 13-20
Obviousness of a claimed compound can also 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).
One of ordinary skill is motivated to select Lee’s compound 28 for further investigation because Lee discloses it as an example of the Chemical Formula 1 and it can be used as host material for an OLED. Having selected the Lee compound 28, one of ordinary skill is motivated to substitute the moiety of
PNG
media_image8.png
214
307
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in the Lee compound with the moiety of
PNG
media_image9.png
214
336
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in Hong compounds as follows, thereby arriving at a compound falling within the chemical genera of instant claims 7-11, 13-19, therefore, claim 7-11 and 13-19 are obvious.
PNG
media_image11.png
875
2278
media_image11.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Hong teaches that the moiety of
PNG
media_image8.png
214
307
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in Lee compound can be replace by
PNG
media_image9.png
214
336
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and the modified compound capable of implementing high efficiency and long lasting organic optoelectronic devices when used as a host compound.
Subject Matter Free of the Art
Claim 12 is free of the art recorded. The closest prior art of record J. S. Hong, et al, KR20170090942A (2017)(“Hong”).
J. S. Hong, et al, KR20170090942A (2017)(“Hong”)
As detail mentioned in the 102 rejection above that Hong teaches the compound 23 which meets each and every limitation of claim 7.
Different between Hong and the instant claim 12
Hong differs from the instant claim 12 in that none of R1 and R2 in the Hong compound 23 or other compounds taught by Hong is not a carbazolyl group.
Claim 12 is not Obvious
Claim 12 is not obvious because neither Hong or Hong in view a second art to motivate one ordinary skill to modify the Hong prior art compound by replacing the phenyl group(s) R1/R2 with a carbazolyl group thus arrive at the claimed compound.
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 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday.
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 at (571)2705241. 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 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692