DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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. JP2011-156833, filed on 07/15/2011.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/27/2024 and 08/12/2024 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 06/27/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 06/27/2024, the claims, specification, drawings, and abstract were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear (See MPEP 1.84(u)). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in paragraphs [0061], [0067], [0127], and [0130] are illegible. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
106
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are not unclear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing font size, making the font bold, and/or making the lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, 10-11, 14-22, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2009/0309488 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kato discloses aromatic heterocyclic derivatives such as compound 43 (page 21) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
306
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Kato formula (9), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
206
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kato also teaches that X11 is an oxygen atom, and X12 is N-R1 (paragraph 0073) wherein R1 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 ring carbon atoms (paragraph 0074), and examples of substituents include aromatic heterocyclic groups having a ring formed of 13 atoms (paragraph 0119), such as dibenzofuran (paragraph 0113).
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of instant formula (3-1) when X represents an oxygen atom, a, d, e, f, and g are 0 so that R1, R3, R4, R8, and R9 are not present, Q is represented by formula 1c, L2 is represented by formula (7a) wherein k1 is 0 and R11 is not present, and Y is an oxygen atom.
Kato includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kato 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 invention being made to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists 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 which shows high luminous efficiency, is free of any pixel defect, and has a long lifetime (paragraph 0019), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
It should be noted, that although Kato does not specifically define R1 as a polycyclic heterocyclic system in which more than 1 aromatic system are linked together, Kato provides examples that this interpretation is within the definition of R1 through embodiments such as, for example, (171) and (172) (page 43).
With respect to claim 3, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kato also teaches the inventive compounds may be represented by formula (3), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
160
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, X1 and X2 have the same definition as X11 and X12 respectively, and all other variables are as pictured above.
Such a compound meets the requirements of the instant claim in that compounds of Kato may also be represented by instant Formula (2-1).
Kato includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kato 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 invention being made to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists 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 which shows high luminous efficiency, is free of any pixel defect, and has a long lifetime (paragraph 0019), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 4, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative according to claim 1, and the compound is represented by formula (3-1), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kato also teaches the inventive compounds may be represented by formula (13), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
202
438
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In this formula, X13 and X14 have the same definition as X11 and X12 respectively, and all other variables are as pictured above.
Such a compound meets the requirements of the instant claim in that compounds of Kato may also be represented by instant Formula (4-1).
Kato includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kato 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 invention being made to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists 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 which shows high luminous efficiency, is free of any pixel defect, and has a long lifetime (paragraph 0019), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 10, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, and X is an oxygen atom.
With respect to claim 11, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, as discussed above.
Kato also teaches that X11 can be a sulfur atom (paragraph 0073).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim.
Kato includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kato 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 invention being made to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists 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 which shows high luminous efficiency, is free of any pixel defect, and has a long lifetime (paragraph 0019), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 14, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, and Y is an oxygen atom so that the aromatic heterocyclic group at R1 is a dibenzofuran group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 15, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, as discussed above.
Kato also teaches the aromatic heterocyclic group at R1 can be a dibenzothiophene group, wherein Y would be a sulfur atom (paragraph 0113, lines 1-6).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim.
Kato includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kato 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 invention being made to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists 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 which shows high luminous efficiency, is free of any pixel defect, and has a long lifetime (paragraph 0019), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 16, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that Kato is non-limiting with respect to the bonding position between the substituted phenylene linker and the aromatic heterocyclic substituent.
Given that there are only four possible bonding sites on the dibenzofuran moiety, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being made to pick any of the four bonding positions and arrive at a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success at forming a compound which shows high luminous efficiency, is free of any pixel defect, and has a long lifetime (paragraph 0019), as taught by Kato (see MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claims 17-20, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, and Kato teaches a general structure for an organic EL device which includes an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, and a cathode (paragraph 0130, lines 1-4), and that the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of the invention may be used as a material in the hole transporting layer (paragraph 0138).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being made to use the claimed aromatic heterocyclic derivative as a hole transport material in the organic layer of an organic electroluminescent device as taught by Kato.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, Kato teaches the organic electroluminescence device of claim 19, and Kato teaches the light emitting layer may comprise an orthometalated iridium phosphorescent material (paragraph 0143-0144).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill prior to the invention being made to use a phosphorescent, orthometalated iridium complex in the light emitting layer, as taught by Kato.
With respect to claim 24, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, and R8 and R9 are not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 25, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative according to claim 1, and the arylene group comprising 6 carbon ring atoms for L2 is a divalent residue of benzene (phenylene), as discussed above.
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 28, wherein both X and Y are an oxygen atom as discussed above.
With respect to claim 28, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, and X and Y are oxygen atoms, as discussed above, and L2 is represented by formula 7a, also as discussed above.
With respect to claim 29, Kato teaches the aromatic heterocyclic derivative of claim 1, and g and f are 0, as discussed above.
Claim 23 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2009/0309488 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Hamada et al. (US 2007/0009762 A1).
With respect to claim 23, Kato teaches the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 20, however, Kato does not teach the hexaazatriphenylene compound of claim 23 in a layer adjacent to the hole transporting layer.
Hamada teaches an organic electroluminescent element with a longer lifetime. Hamada teaches this device has a light emitting layer and a hole transport layer, and adjacent to the hole transport layer is an intermediate layer which has a LUMO lower than that of the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer.
Hamada gives an example of the inventive intermediate layer compound in paragraph 0020, which is the hexaazatriphenylene derivative below.
PNG
media_image6.png
223
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hamada teaches that when this material is used in an intermediate layer, it has a LUMO lower than the hole transport layer and light emitting layer, which allows the intermediate layer to trap electrons that have passed through the light emitting layer. By trapping electrons, there is a decrease in the number of electrons moving from the light emitting layer into the hole transport layer, and the lifetime of the electroluminescent device is increased (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the hexaazatriphenylene derivative of Hamada into a layer adjacent to the hole transport layer of Kato in order to trap excess electrons moving from the light emitting layer and increase the lifetime of the electroluminescent device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-11, 14-23, and 25-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 14, 15-18, and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,977.
Specifically,
The aromatic heterocyclic derivative of instant claim 1 which is represented by instant Formula (2-1) is met by Formula (2-1) of ‘977, instant Formula (3-1) is met by Formula (3-1) of ‘977, and instant Formula (4-1) is met by Formula (4-1) of ‘977.
Formula (2-1) of instant claim 3 is met by Formula (2-1) of claim 15 of ‘977.
Formula (3-1) of instant claim 4 is met by Formula (3-1) of claim 17 of ‘977.
Formula (4-1) of instant claim 5 is met by Formula (4-1) of claim 21 of ‘977.
The definitions of X and Y found in instant claims 10-11 and 14-15 are met by claims 1-3 of ‘977.
The bonding position of instant claim 16 is recited in claim 16 of ‘977.
The device details found in instant claims 17-20 are met by claims 4-7 of ‘977.
The phosphorescent material of instant claims 21-22 is met by claims 9-10 of ‘977.
The hole transporting material of instant claim 23 is met by the hole transporting material of claim 8 of ‘977.
The definition for L2 found in instant claim 25 is met by any of claims 1, 14, 16, 18, 20, or 22 of ‘977.
The definitions for X and Y found in instant claims 26-28 are met by claims 1-3 of ‘977.
The definition for L2 of instant claim 28 is found is any of claims 1, 14, 16, 18, 20, or 22 of '977.
The definitions for instant g and f in claim 29 are analogous to the definitions for f and g in claim 1 of ‘977.
Thus, while the subject matter claimed in the instant application is not identical to the subject matter claimed in U.S. Patent No. 10,043,977, there is a substantive overlap which obviates the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kato et al. (US 2010/0012931 A1) – teaches relevant compounds
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1786