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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
263
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 08/19/2022 was previously acknowledged.
After reconsideration of the requirement of election of species set forth in the Office action dated 07/14/2022 and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement of election of species was previously withdrawn with respect to element (C) ONLY.
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 encompass the elected species.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's reply of 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. US-20110272684-A1 in view of Lee et al. US-20060103298-A1 and Jung et al. US-20160013420-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of teachings of newly cited Lee et al. KR-20170086277-A and Suh et al. WO-2018110989-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 36-38 of the reply dated 01/23/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. US-20110272684-A1 in view of Lee et al. US-20060103298-A1 ("Lee-1") and Jung et al. US-20160013420-A1 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 36-37 and 38 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendments to the claims.
Examiner's response – The claims did not previously require the amended limitations regarding Structural Formula 10 in Chemical Formula D and the more limited list of specific compounds of claim 11 and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of teachings of newly cited Lee et al. KR-20170086277-A and Suh et al. WO-2018110989-A1.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 37 that the primary reference already teaches host materials addressing the crystallization concern, and therefore the rationale to incorporate Lee-1's second-host approach into Parham is diminished and, at minimum, is not supported by a specific teaching to modify Parham in the manner required to arrive at the applicant's amended Chemical Formula D.
Examiner's response – This is not found persuasive. While Parham does appear to teach the compound exhibiting virtually no tendency to crystallize on the edge of the vapour-deposition source during the vapour deposition process (i.e. during manufacturing), Lee-1 teaches prevention of device characteristic degradation due to crystallization which may occur during device operation, in addition to manufacturing. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Parham with Lee-1 for at least the reason of preventing device characteristics from being degraded due to crystallization during device operation.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 37-38 that dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, and 12-18 are also deemed to be allowable at least due to their dependence from allowable independent claim 1.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to these claims and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, on line 5 of page 7, one of the two commas at the end of the clause should be deleted;
in claim 1, on page 8, it is suggested to change lines 10-11 to read "with the proviso that when X13 is O, then Y2 is O or S, and when X13 is CR54R55, then Y2 is S" for ease of reading;
in claim 1, on line 5 of page 9, it is suggested to replace "wherein, when Az corresponds to Structural Formula 3 to Structural Formula 8" with "wherein[[,]] when Az corresponds to is represented by any one of Structural Formula 3 to Structural Formula 8" to be consistent with claim language previously in the claim and in claim 7;
in claim 2, it is suggested to change lines 1-2 to read "The organic light-emitting diode of claim 1, wherein Az in Chemical Formula D represented by any one of Structural Formula 2 to Structural Formula 8 are each any one selected from the following E1 to E24…" for ease of reading;
in claim 3, it is suggested to change lines 1-2 to read "The organic light-emitting diode of claim 1, wherein the linkers L1 to L3 in Chemical formula A…" to be consistent with the other claims and for ease of reading;
in claim 7, it is suggested to change lines 1-2 to read "The organic light-emitting diode of claim 1, wherein when Az in Chemical Formula D is represented by any one of
in claim 7, it is suggested to change lines 5-6 on page 14 to read "with the proviso that when X13 is O, then Y2 is O, S, or NR53, and when X13 is CR54R55, then Y2 is S, NR56, or CR57R58" for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. US-20110272684-A1 (hereinafter "Parham") in view of Lee et al. US-20060103298-A1 (hereinafter "Lee-1") and Lee et al. KR-20170086277-A (hereinafter "Lee-3-KR") (see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Lee-3-MT").
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18, Parham teaches an organic electroluminescent device and the corresponding display comprising an anode, a cathode and at least one emitting layer, where the emitting layer comprises at least one compound of one of the formulae I, II, III or IV (¶ [0012], ¶ [0075], ¶ [0090]) employed as a matrix material for a dopant (¶ [0061]), wherein one or more layers are produced from solution (¶ [0084]). Parham teaches that apart from the cathode, anode, and emitting layer, the organic electroluminescent device may also comprise further layers including hole-injection layer, hole-transport layer, electron-transport layer, and/or electron-injection layer (¶ [0081]). Parham teaches that the compound has the following benefits used in an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0085]): high power efficiency (¶[0086]); higher stability (¶ [0087]); suitability for mass production due no or virtually no tendency to crystallize (¶ [0089]). Parham teaches specific examples of the compound (¶ [0037]) including compound 7
PNG
media_image2.png
210
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 5), which is an arylamine compound.
The compound 7 of Parham
PNG
media_image2.png
210
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group (a phenyl group);
L1 to L3 are not required to be present;
p, q, and r are each 0;
HAr1 is Structural Formula 1;
X is CR13R14 and Y is S;
R1 to R4, and R5 are each hydrogen; adjacent R6 and R7 are each a single bond connected to * in the Structural Formula Q, and R8 to R10 and R12 are each hydrogen; and
R11 is a single bond connected to the linker L1 in Chemical Formula A.
Parham does not specifically teach a device as described above wherein the light emitting layer further comprises a host compound represented by the claimed Formula D.
Lee-1 teaches an organic electroluminescent device which can prevent device characteristics from being degraded due to crystallization which may occur during device operation (¶ [0013]), or manufacturing (¶ [0076]), wherein the device comprises at least one light-emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one dopant and at least two host materials including a first host material and a second host material (¶ [0015]). Lee-1 teaches the first host material is a small molecular material and may be selected from a group comprising arylamines (¶ [0029]), but has a disadvantage in that it may be easily crystallized by heat and thus may lower device characteristics (¶ [0030], ¶ [0045]). Lee-1 teaches that the crystallization of the first host material can be prevented by a second host material (¶ [0031]-[0032], ¶ [0046]-[0047]). Lee-1 teaches that in this way device characteristic degradation and device damage which may result from crystallization can be prevented (¶ [0035], ¶ [0076]). Lee-1 teaches that the second host material may have electron transporting characteristic since the first host material has hole transporting characteristic, thereby improving device efficiency (¶ [0031]) and teaches that the second host material may comprise a triazine group, for example (¶ [0031], ¶ [0046]).
Additionally, Lee-3 teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising an organic layer between a first electrode and a second electrode facing each other, including a light emitting layer (Lee-3-MT, page 7 of 37, lines 11-15), wherein the light emitting layer includes a compound represented by Formula 2 as a host to a dopant (Lee-3-MT, page 7 of 37, lines 16-23). Lee-3 teaches examples of the compound represented by Formula 2 that comprise a triazine group on pages 32-38, see for examples compound E-30
PNG
media_image3.png
187
124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second host compound in the device of Parham, based on the teaching of Lee-1. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent device characteristic degradation and device damage due to crystallization of the host compound of Parham which may occur during device operation or manufacturing, as taught by Lee-1.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 by forming the second host out of the compound described above, as taught by Lee-3. One would have been motivated to do so because Lee-1 teaches a second host compound in the emitting layer of an organic light emitting device including a group such as triazine and Lee-3 teaches a compound suitable for use as a host in the emitting layer of an organic light emitting device comprising a triazine group. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
The compound E-30
PNG
media_image3.png
187
124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of Lee-3 corresponds to the claimed compound E-58 and is a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula D wherein:
HAr4 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl of 18 carbon atoms represented by Structural Formula 10;
L is a single bond;
n1 is 1 and n2 is 0;
m1 is 1;
Az is represented by Structural Formula 2 (E1);
Z1 is N;
Z2 is CR22;
Z3 is N;
Z4 is CR24;
Z5 is N;
R20 is a single bond connected to the linker L (which is a single bond);
R22 and R24 are each an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon of 6 carbon atoms;
wherein in the Structural Formula 10:
X13 is O and Y2 is S or X13 is S and Y2 is O;
R43 is a single bond connected to the linker L (which is a single bond);
R47 and R48 are each a single bond connect to respective * in Structural Formula Q1; and
R41 to R42, R44 to R46, and R49 to R52 are each a hydrogen atom, and R54 to R55, and R57 to R58 are not required to be present.
The modified organic electroluminescent device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 meets claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18.
Regarding claim 8, Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 teaches the modified device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the position corresponding to Ar1 or Ar2 of Chemical Formula A in the compound of Parham is a substituent represented by Structural Formula 11. However, Parham teaches that: in the general formula I, II, III, or IV, substituent A correspond to the general formula V
PNG
media_image4.png
105
95
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0013]) wherein the link to the compound of the general formula I, II, III, or IV takes place via Y (¶ [0014]); it is preferred for Ar in the general formula I, II, III or IV to be phenyl, naphthyl, a substituted aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5-15 carbon atoms or an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system which is substituted by arylamine or carbazole (¶ [0029]); and an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5-60 aromatic ring atoms is taken to mean in particular benzene, dibenzofuran, and dibenzothiophene, among others (¶ [0041]). In the compound 39 of Parham, both of Ar is benzene.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Parham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute at least one of the Ar benzene groups for a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene in the compound of Parham, because Parham teaches the variable may preferably be selected as phenyl, naphthyl, a substituted aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5-15 carbon atoms or an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system which is substituted by arylamine or carbazole and teaches particular examples of the heteroaromatic ring system include dibenzofuran and dibenzothiophene. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the emission layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select specifically dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene, because it would have been choosing from the list of preferred particular substituent groups specifically listed by Parham, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 and possessing the benefits taught by Parham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Parham having the benefits as described above taught by Parham in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound of Parham comprises, at the position corresponding to Ar1 or Ar2 in Chemical Formula A, a substituent represented by Structural Formula 11 wherein X14 is O or S and R71 to R78 are each a hydrogen atom, or a single bond connected to the linker L2 or L3 in Chemical Formula A.
Regarding claim 10, Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 teaches the modified device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the compound of Parham is equivalent is one of claimed Compounds H1 to H208. More specifically, Parham does not specifically disclose a compound like compound 7 wherein the S is replaced with O and wherein the 5-6 ring is fused as shown in formulae III-IV instead of formulae I-II. However, Parham teaches the compound of general formulae I, II, III, or IV, which show 5-6 ring fusions at different locations on the 6-5-6 rings, and teaches in those formulae that variable X may be O, S, among others (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Parham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the X variable S for O, because Parham teaches the variable may suitably be selected as O or S, among others. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select O, because it would have been choosing from the list of 13 options specifically disclosed as suitable for the variable X, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the emission layer of the device of A Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Parham having the benefits as described above taught by Parham in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Finally, given the general formula and teachings of Parham, 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 the modified compound 7 wherein the 5-6 rings are fused to the 6-6 rings in the manner of formula III and IV instead of in the manner of formulae I and II. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by formulae I, II, III, or IV in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. 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.
The resulting compound has the structure
PNG
media_image5.png
106
162
media_image5.png
Greyscale
which corresponds to the claimed compound H81.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 teaches the modified device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein one of the two host compounds is one of claimed Compounds H1 to H208. More specifically, Parham does not specifically disclose a compound like compound 7 wherein (1) the amino group is substituted at a position para to the connection to the S atom; and (2) wherein the S is replaced with O.
Regarding (1), 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 the modified compound 7 wherein the amino group is substituted at a position para to the connection to the S atom. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds that are positional isomers of the compound represented by formulae I, II, III, or IV in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham inv view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. 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.
Regarding (2), Parham teaches in those formulae that variable X may be O, S, among others (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Parham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the X variable S for O, because Parham teaches the variable may suitably be selected as O or S, among others. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select O, because it would have been choosing from the list of 13 options specifically disclosed as suitable for the variable X, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the emission layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Parham having the benefits as described above taught by Parham in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The resulting compound has the structure
PNG
media_image6.png
164
138
media_image6.png
Greyscale
which corresponds to the claimed compound H109 and is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein R4 in Structural Formula 1 is a single bond connected to the linker L1 in Chemical Formula A.
Regarding claim 13, Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 teaches the modified device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the ratio of the first host compound of Parham to the second host compound of Lee-3 is 1:9 to 9:1.
Lee-1 teaches preferably, in order to improve the device characteristics, the second host material has weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the first host material having weight ratio of 1 (¶ [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light-emitting layer in the modified device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Lee-3 such that the first host compound of Parham has weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the second host compound of Lee-3, having weight ratio of 1, based on the teaching of Lee-1. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the device characteristics, as taught by Lee-1.
The first host compound of Parham having a weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the second host compound of Lee-3 having weight ratio of 1 lies inside the claimed range of 1:9 to 9:1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. US-20110272684-A1 (hereinafter "Parham") in view of Lee et al. US-20060103298-A1 (hereinafter "Lee-1") and Suh et al. WO-2018110989-A1, see English language equivalent US-20190152985-A1 referred to hereinafter as "Suh".
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14-16, and 18, Parham teaches an organic electroluminescent device and the corresponding display comprising an anode, a cathode and at least one emitting layer, where the emitting layer comprises at least one compound of one of the formulae I, II, III or IV (¶ [0012], ¶ [0075], ¶ [0090]) employed as a matrix material for a dopant (¶ [0061]), wherein one or more layers are produced from solution (¶ [0084]). Parham teaches that apart from the cathode, anode, and emitting layer, the organic electroluminescent device may also comprise further layers including hole-injection layer, hole-transport layer, electron-transport layer, and/or electron-injection layer (¶ [0081]). Parham teaches that the compound has the following benefits used in an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0085]): high power efficiency (¶[0086]); higher stability (¶ [0087]); suitability for mass production due no or virtually no tendency to crystallize (¶ [0089]). Parham teaches specific examples of the compound (¶ [0037]) including compound 7
PNG
media_image2.png
210
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 5), which is an arylamine compound.
The compound 7 of Parham
PNG
media_image2.png
210
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group (a phenyl group);
L1 to L3 are not required to be present;
p, q, and r are each 0;
HAr1 is Structural Formula 1;
X is CR13R14 and Y is S;
R1 to R4, and R5 are each hydrogen; adjacent R6 and R7 are each a single bond connected to * in the Structural Formula Q, and R8 to R10 and R12 are each hydrogen; and
R11 is a single bond connected to the linker L1 in Chemical Formula A.
Parham does not specifically teach a device as described above wherein the light emitting layer further comprises a host compound represented by the claimed Formula D.
Lee-1 teaches an organic electroluminescent device which can prevent device characteristics from being degraded due to crystallization which may occur during device operation (¶ [0013]), or manufacturing (¶ [0076]), wherein the device comprises at least one light-emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one dopant and at least two host materials including a first host material and a second host material (¶ [0015]). Lee-1 teaches the first host material is a small molecular material and may be selected from a group comprising arylamines (¶ [0029]), but has a disadvantage in that it may be easily crystallized by heat and thus may lower device characteristics (¶ [0030], ¶ [0045]). Lee-1 teaches that the crystallization of the first host material can be prevented by a second host material (¶ [0031]-[0032], ¶ [0046]-[0047]). Lee-1 teaches that in this way device characteristic degradation and device damage which may result from crystallization can be prevented (¶ [0035], ¶ [0076]). Lee-1 teaches that the second host material may have electron transporting characteristic since the first host material has hole transporting characteristic, thereby improving device efficiency (¶ [0031]) and teaches that the second host material may comprise a triazine group, for example (¶ [0031], ¶ [0046]).
Additionally, Suh teaches an organic light emitting device comprising at least one layer of organic material layers provided between a first electrode and a second electrode comprising a compound of a Chemical Formula 1 (¶ [0056]), wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is used in an emitting layer (¶ [0059]) as a host (¶ [0171]), and has electron transport capabilities (¶ [0017], ¶ [0060]). Suh teaches the compound can achieve an improvement of the efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or an improvement of the lifetime characteristic when used as a material of an organic light emitting device (¶ [0017]). Suh teaches examples of the compound of Chemical Formula 1 that comprise a triazine group in paragraph [0051], see for example
PNG
media_image7.png
211
260
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second host compound in the device of Parham, based on the teaching of Lee-1. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent device characteristic degradation and device damage due to crystallization of the host compound of Parham which may occur during device operation or manufacturing, as taught by Lee-1.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 by forming the second host out of the compound described above, as taught by Suh. One would have been motivated to do so because Lee-1 teaches a second host compound in the emitting layer of an organic light emitting device with electron transporting characteristic which may including a group such as triazine and Suh teaches a compound suitable for use in the emitting layer of an organic light emitting device with electron transport capabilities and comprising a triazine group. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Suh teaches the compound can achieve an improvement of the efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or an improvement of the lifetime characteristic when used as a material of an organic material layer of an organic light emitting device and therefore forming the second host in the device of Parham and Lee-1 out of the compound of Suh would yield the benefit of improvement of the efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or an improvement of the lifetime characteristic.
The compound
PNG
media_image7.png
211
260
media_image7.png
Greyscale
of Suh is a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula D wherein:
HAr4 is a substituted heteroaryl of 18 carbon atoms represented by Structural Formula 10;
L is a single bond;
n1 is 1 and n2 is 0;
m1 is 1;
Az is represented by Structural Formula 2 (E1);
Z1 is N;
Z2 is CR22;
Z3 is N;
Z4 is CR24;
Z5 is N;
R20 is a single bond connected to the linker L (which is a single bond);
R22 and R24 are each an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon of 6 carbon atoms;
wherein in the Structural Formula 10:
X13 and Y are each O;
R42 is a single bond connected to the linker L (which is a single bond);
R44 and R45 are each a single bond connect to respective * in Structural Formula Q1; and
R41, R43, and R46 to R52 are each a hydrogen atom, and R54 to R55 and R57 to R58 are not required to be present.
The modified organic electroluminescent device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh meets claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14-16, and 18.
Regarding claim 8, Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh teaches the modified device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the position corresponding to Ar1 or Ar2 of Chemical Formula A in the compound of Parham is a substituent represented by Structural Formula 11. However, Parham teaches that: in the general formula I, II, III, or IV, substituent A correspond to the general formula V
PNG
media_image4.png
105
95
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0013]) wherein the link to the compound of the general formula I, II, III, or IV takes place via Y (¶ [0014]); it is preferred for Ar in the general formula I, II, III or IV to be phenyl, naphthyl, a substituted aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5-15 carbon atoms or an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system which is substituted by arylamine or carbazole (¶ [0029]); and an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5-60 aromatic ring atoms is taken to mean in particular benzene, dibenzofuran, and dibenzothiophene, among others (¶ [0041]). In the compound 39 of Parham, both of Ar is benzene.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Parham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute at least one of the Ar benzene groups for a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene in the compound of Parham, because Parham teaches the variable may preferably be selected as phenyl, naphthyl, a substituted aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5-15 carbon atoms or an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system which is substituted by arylamine or carbazole and teaches particular examples of the heteroaromatic ring system include dibenzofuran and dibenzothiophene. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the emission layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select specifically dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene, because it would have been choosing from the list of preferred particular substituent groups specifically listed by Parham, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh and possessing the benefits taught by Parham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Parham having the benefits as described above taught by Parham in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound of Parham comprises, at the position corresponding to Ar1 or Ar2 in Chemical Formula A, a substituent represented by Structural Formula 11 wherein X14 is O or S and R71 to R78 are each a hydrogen atom, or a single bond connected to the linker L2 or L3 in Chemical Formula A.
Regarding claim 10, Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh teaches the modified device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the compound of Parham is equivalent is one of claimed Compounds H1 to H208. More specifically, Parham does not specifically disclose a compound like compound 7 wherein the S is replaced with O and wherein the 5-6 ring is fused as shown in formulae III-IV instead of formulae I-II. However, Parham teaches the compound of general formulae I, II, III, or IV, which show 5-6 ring fusions at different locations on the 6-5-6 rings, and teaches in those formulae that variable X may be O, S, among others (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Parham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the X variable S for O, because Parham teaches the variable may suitably be selected as O or S, among others. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select O, because it would have been choosing from the list of 13 options specifically disclosed as suitable for the variable X, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the emission layer of the device of A Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Parham having the benefits as described above taught by Parham in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Finally, given the general formula and teachings of Parham, 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 the modified compound 7 wherein the 5-6 rings are fused to the 6-6 rings in the manner of formula III and IV instead of in the manner of formulae I and II. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by formulae I, II, III, or IV in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. 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.
The resulting compound has the structure
PNG
media_image5.png
106
162
media_image5.png
Greyscale
which corresponds to the claimed compound H81.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh teaches the modified device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein one of the two host compounds is one of claimed Compounds H1 to H208. More specifically, Parham does not specifically disclose a compound like compound 7 wherein (1) the amino group is substituted at a position para to the connection to the S atom; and (2) wherein the S is replaced with O.
Regarding (1), 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 the modified compound 7 wherein the amino group is substituted at a position para to the connection to the S atom. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds that are positional isomers of the compound represented by formulae I, II, III, or IV in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham inv view of Lee-1 and Jung and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. 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.
Regarding (2), Parham teaches in those formulae that variable X may be O, S, among others (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Parham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the X variable S for O, because Parham teaches the variable may suitably be selected as O or S, among others. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select O, because it would have been choosing from the list of 13 options specifically disclosed as suitable for the variable X, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the emission layer of the device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh and possess the benefits as described above taught by Parham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Parham having the benefits as described above taught by Parham in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The resulting compound has the structure
PNG
media_image6.png
164
138
media_image6.png
Greyscale
which corresponds to the claimed compound H109 and is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula A wherein R4 in Structural Formula 1 is a single bond connected to the linker L1 in Chemical Formula A.
Regarding claim 13, Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh teaches the modified device comprising the compounds as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the ratio of the first host compound of Parham to the second host compound of Jung is 1:9 to 9:1.
Lee-1 teaches preferably, in order to improve the device characteristics, the second host material has weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the first host material having weight ratio of 1 (¶ [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light-emitting layer in the modified device of Parham in view of Lee-1 and Suh such that the first host compound of Parham has weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the second host compound of Jung, having weight ratio of 1, based on the teaching of Lee-1. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the device characteristics, as taught by Lee-1.
The first host compound of Parham having a weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the second host compound of Jung having weight ratio of 1 lies inside the claimed range of 1:9 to 9:1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ryu et al. US-20150280136-A1 teaches a compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2 or 3, and Chemical Formula 4 (¶ [0008]), for example,
PNG
media_image8.png
250
388
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
355
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0168]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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 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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786