DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 Hatakeyama et al (US 2023/0096132, cited on IDS filed on 11/27/2024 ).
Regarding claim 1, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound (Page 114 ):
PNG
media_image1.png
329
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
250
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Ar1 is a thiophene ring;
Ar2 is a benzene ring;
R1, is either not present or a tert-butyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C4 alkyl; and
R2 and R3 are tert-butyl groups, i.e. unsubstituted C4 alkyls.
The difference between the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed is that in the compound disclosed by the reference two (2) fused R1 groups have the formula:
-C(CH3)2-C-C(CH3)2-,
while the claims require the formula:
-O-(CH2)m-O.
However, the compound is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (1) ([0016]):
PNG
media_image3.png
240
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where one ring A, B, or C is fused with at least one cycloalkane having 3 to 20 carbon atoms, e.g. cyclohexane, and at least one -CH2- group can be substituted with -O- ([0022] and [0122]-[0123]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where the cycloalkyl is a cyclohexane where two (2) -CH2-- groups are replaced by -O- to obtain the following fused structure:
PNG
media_image4.png
300
240
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
where two (2) adjacent R1’s fuse to form -O-(CH2)m-O- and m is two (2).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses Formula (1-4):
PNG
media_image5.png
212
304
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the R1’s that are present correspond to C4 alkyls and two (2) adjacent R1’s fuse to form:
PNG
media_image6.png
66
72
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 4, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the R1’s that are present correspond to tert-butyl groups and two (2) adjacent R1’s fuse to form:
PNG
media_image6.png
66
72
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R2 is a C2 alkyl.
Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R2 is a tert-butyl.
Regarding claim 7, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R3 is a C4 alkyl.
Regarding claim 8, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R4 is a tert-butyl.
Regarding claim 9, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. The compound discussed above does not correspond to the recited compound:
PNG
media_image7.png
198
280
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
However, the reference discloses that in Formula 1 ([0016]):
PNG
media_image8.png
182
166
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
X1 and X2 are >N-R, where R is phenyl group substituted with alkyls such as tert-butyl and methyl groups ([0026] and [0087]-[0089]), thereby obtaining the above compound recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image9.png
353
587
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 corresponds to the recited first electrode; layer 108 corresponds to the recited second electrode opposite the first electrode (108); layers 103 to 107 correspond to the recited organic layers; and layer 105, the light emitting layer. comprises the disclosed compound as a dopant ([0052] and [0178]).
Regarding claim 11, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 12, Hatakeyama et al teaches al the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 1-5:
PNG
media_image10.png
364
448
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights