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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0111078, filed on 08/23/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 11/27/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 11/27/2023, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-11 were originally filed.
Claim 8 is instantly amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
With respect to claim 3, Chemical Formula 6 describes a compound wherein Chemical Formula A is bonded at a position analogous to instant R1, but X is not limited to just sulfur, which is explicitly prohibited by parent claim 1.
In continuing examination, Chemical Formula 6 will be interpreted as being limited to comprising a dibenzothiophene moiety.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 3, Chemical Formula 6 describes a compound wherein Chemical Formula A is bonded at a position analogous to instant R1, but X is not limited to just sulfur, which is explicitly prohibited by parent claim 1.
With respect to claim 7, the claim contains compounds wherein Chemical Formula A is bonded at a position analogous to instant R1, but X is not limited to just sulfur, which is explicitly prohibited by parent claim 1. These include compounds 749 and 750. Please note that these examples are non-limiting and the entire claim should be checked for compliance.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montenegro et al. (US 2022/0109116 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 4, and 6, Montenegro discloses compound 61 (page 76), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
491
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from formula (I-A) (paragraph 0056), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Montenegro also teaches that m is 0 (paragraph 0031) and R2 is a methyl group (Formula R2-5, paragraph 0060).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when X is a sulfur atom, R1 is Chemical Formula A, R7 is Chemical Formula B, and the remaining R characters are hydrogen atoms. In Chemical Formula A, p is 0 and Rp is absent. In Chemical Formula B, n is 0 and L is absent, L1 and L2 are both a direct bond, R9 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group and R10 is a C12 aryl (biphenyl) group.
Montenegro includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Montenegro being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known combination from the finite number of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with very good hole-conducting properties, very good electron-blocking properties, high glass transition temperature, high oxidation stability, good stability, high thermal stability, and low sublimation temperature, which leads to excellent results in terms of lifetime, operating voltage, and quantum efficiency when used in an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0007), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 2, Montenegro teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the structure of instant Chemical Formula 2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 3, Montenegro teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Montenegro also teaches compound 59 (page 76), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
391
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is also derived from formula (I-A) (paragraph 0056) which is pictured above.
Also as discussed above, Montenegro teaches that m is 0 and R2 is a methyl group (Formula R2-5, paragraph 0060).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 6 when X is a sulfur atom, R15-R18 are hydrogen atoms, o is 0 and Ro is absent, p is 0 and Rp is absent, n is 1 and L is a C6 arylene (phenylene) group, L1 and L2 are both a direct bond, R9 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group and R10 is a C13 aryl (fluorenyl) group.
Montenegro includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Montenegro being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known combination from the finite number of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with very good hole-conducting properties, very good electron-blocking properties, high glass transition temperature, high oxidation stability, good stability, high thermal stability, and low sublimation temperature, which leads to excellent results in terms of lifetime, operating voltage, and quantum efficiency when used in an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0007), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 5, Montenegro teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Montenegro also teaches that the compound may be deuterated (paragraph 0053, also see for example compound 39 on page 72, as well as the embodiments throughout the prior art).
Such a modification produces a compound comprising 14 deuterium atoms and 17 hydrogen atoms, for a percent deuteration of ~45%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate the compound of Montenegro, as taught by Montenegro.
With respect to claim 7, Montenegro teaches the compound of claim 1, which is derived from Montenegro Formula (I-A), as discussed above.
Examiner notes that Montenegro is non-limiting with respect to the bonding positions of moiety A and the fluorene moiety.
Given the general formula and teachings of Montenegro, 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 compound 61 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Montenegro and possess the properties taught by Montenegro. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer is instant compound 562.
Montenegro includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Montenegro being a lack of the aforementioned bonding pattern explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible bonding pattern from the finite number of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with very good hole-conducting properties, very good electron-blocking properties, high glass transition temperature, high oxidation stability, good stability, high thermal stability, and low sublimation temperature, which leads to excellent results in terms of lifetime, operating voltage, and quantum efficiency when used in an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0007), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 8-11, Montenegro teaches the compound of claim 1, and Montenegro also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an organic material layer comprising a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, and an electron transporting layer (paragraph 0091). Montenegro teaches the compound is suitable for use in a hole transporting layer or an electron blocking layer (paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound in a hole transporting and/or electron blocking layer of a device with the claimed structure, as taught by Montenegro.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights