NON-FINAL REJECTION
This application, filed May 23, 2024, is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/101011, filed Jun. 24, 2022, which claims benefit of foreign priority to CN 202111439232.3, filed Nov. 29, 2021.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 to foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.
119(a)-(d), and of Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 23, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US Pub. 2023/0299242, cited on PTO-892, which is the English-language equivalent of WO 2022/078429, cited on the IDS dated 5/23/2024).
Min et al. disclose and claim light emitting devices comprising an electroluminescent unit and a color conversion layer comprising at least one color conversion material (CCM), which is a compound of structural formula (1) or (2).
In particular, Min et al. exemplify and claim a light-emitting device comprising a CCM compound of the structural formula shown below (claim 4, p. 40, left col., third compound from top) in comparison with DBTN-1:
Claimed Compound DBTN-1
Compound of Min et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
242
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, Min et al. disclose, exemplify, and claim light emitting devices comprising a B/N (boron-nitrogen) compound which is identical to the core structure of DBTN-1, as recited by claims 1 and 10.
The compound of Min et al. differs from DBTN-1 only in the absence of the five peripheral tert-butyl substituents.
However, the compound of Min et al. is disclosed as a species of general formula (2), having the structural formula,
PNG
media_image3.png
286
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
wherein R1 to R5 are independently selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, C3-C20 branched or cyclic alkyl (claim 1).
Min et al. further disclose that any hydrogen atom on the CCM compounds may be substituted, particularly preferably selected from, e.g., t-butyl (para. [0055]).
In addition, Min et al. exemplify several compounds with multiple tert-butyl substituents, including, e.g., the compound of Example 2,
PNG
media_image4.png
364
408
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which absorbs blue light from GaN LEDs with a peak between 400-465 nm, and emits green
light between 490-530 nm with a color coordinate of (0.16, 0.60) (paras. [0118]-[0119]).
Therefore, it would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the compound of Min et al. by substituting hydrogen with t-butyl at R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 of formula (2) to arrive at DBTN-1 with a reasonable expectation of success, because Min et al. expressly teach and suggest multiple t-butyl substitutions on the core CCM structure to enhance organic solvent solubility, and exemplify a structurally similar compound with four t-butyl substitutions that emits green light, as does DBTN-1. The modification would be expected to retain the core structure's narrow-band emission characteristics while achieving improved solubility.
As recognized by MPEP § 2144.09, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have (1) very close structural similarities and (2) similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
A prima facie case of obviousness based on structural similarity is rebuttable by proof that the claimed compounds possess unexpectedly advantageous or superior properties. In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 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.
Citation of Additional Prior Art
Additional references made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 113651841A (cited on PTO-892) discloses structurally similar B/N light-emitting materials, and exemplifies the reactant recited in step (1) of claim 2, as compound 2 (para. [0058]):
PNG
media_image5.png
150
154
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA E. TOWNSLEY whose telephone number is 571-270-7672. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff S. Lundgren, can be reached at 571-272-5541. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SARA E. TOWNSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights