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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202111669905.4 filed in People's Republic of China on December 30, 2021.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202210635848.6 filed in People's Republic of China on June 7, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0131090 A1) in view of Cha et al. (WO2022102992 relying on English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a host compound N-179
PNG
media_image1.png
578
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
that only differs from Formula 1 of instant application in that the heteroaryl group is missing the tetrahydronaphthalene group (
PNG
media_image2.png
276
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) in
PNG
media_image3.png
246
355
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of Formula 1.
However, Lee teaches that N-179 is a specific compound of Formula 2,
PNG
media_image4.png
363
573
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. In N-179, Ar5 is a heterocyclic group, specifically a dibenzofuran (para. 0086). Lee teaches that the heterocyclic group may be substituted with one or more substituents and that the substitution may be a saturated or unsaturated ring (para. 0095).
Cha teaches triazine compounds with tetrahydronaphthalene group substitutions,
PNG
media_image5.png
460
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. In Table 1, Cha shows that triazine compounds with tetrahydronaphthalene group substituents present better voltage, efficiency, and lifespan then compounds that do not possess the group (para. 361).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound N-179 of Lee to have a tetrahydronaphthalene group attached via the meta- position to the C6 position of the dibenzofuran, because it would have been choosing one of ortho-, meta-, para- of the tetrahydronaphthalene and one of C1-C9 positions of the dibenzofuran, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emitting layer of the OLED device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Cha. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds comprising a compound with a tetrahydronaphthalene having the benefits taught by Cha in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).Modified compound of Lee reads on Formula 1 of instant application.
PNG
media_image6.png
561
1212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where in Formula 1
X1 to X3 are each an N atom
p is 1
L1 and L2 are the same and are a single bond
m is 2
One of L is a single bond and another L is an unsubstituted heteroarylene having 12 carbon atoms
Ar1 and Ar2 are the same and an unsubstituted aryl having 10 carbon atoms
n3 is 0
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 5, modified Lee further teaches wherein L1 and L2 are the same and are a single bond.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches that L1 is a single bond and the instant claim is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 does not require L1 to be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group, thus the limitation wherein
PNG
media_image7.png
76
210
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is selected from the group consisting of the following groups:
PNG
media_image8.png
252
1149
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is not required.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee further teaches wherein m represents 2, one of two L is a single bond and the other L is an unsubstituted heteroarylene having 12 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee further teaches wherein m represents 2, one of the two L is a single bond and the other L is an unsubstituted
PNG
media_image9.png
142
190
media_image9.png
Greyscale
of group V.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee further teaches wherein
PNG
media_image10.png
78
192
media_image10.png
Greyscale
is
PNG
media_image9.png
142
190
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee further teaches wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are the same and an unsubstituted aryl having 10 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee further teaches wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are
PNG
media_image11.png
93
132
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee further teaches wherein modified compound N-179
PNG
media_image12.png
593
601
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is compound 510
PNG
media_image13.png
411
287
media_image13.png
Greyscale
of instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee further teaches an organic electroluminescent device (para. 0013, abstract) comprising an anode (first electrode, para. 0013, anode, abstract) and a cathode (second electrode, para. 0013, cathode, abstract) that are disposed opposite to each other, and a functional layer (organic material layer, para. 0013, abstract) disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound according to claim 1 (organic material layer/emitting layer comprises a host represented by Formula 2, para. 0013, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use modified N-179, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lee according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED device with a lower driving voltage and improved luminous efficiency and lifetime (abstract, para. 0012), as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee further teaches wherein the functional layer comprises an organic emissive layer (emitting layer, para. 0013), the organic emissive layer comprising the organic compound (compound of Formula 2, para. 0013).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee further teaches an electronic apparatus (electronic device, para. 0014), comprising the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 13 (comprising the electronic element with the compound of Formula 2, para. 0013 and 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electroluminescent device of claim 13 in an electronic apparatus, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Lee according to known methods to yield predictable results of an electronic device with an organic electronic element with a lower driving voltage and improved luminous efficiency and lifetime (abstract, para. 0012), as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches that L1 and L2 are a single bond and the instant claim is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 does not require L1 or L2 to have substituents, thus the limitations wherein the substituents in L1 and L2 are each independently selected from the group consisting of deuterium, fluorine, cyano, alkyl having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, fluoroalkyl having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, deuterated alkyl having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, trialkylsilyl are not required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights