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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/1/7/2021 are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/031679 (published 1/8/2019; herein referred to as LG CHEM; for citation purpose the English language equivalent US 2019/0372012 is relied upon) in view of JP2016149473 (herein referred to as Sugino. US 2018/0037546 is relied upon as an English equivalent thereof).
LG Chem teaches an organic light emitting device comprising at least on light emitting layer which comprises a first host compound and a second host compound (abstract). The layer may further comprise a dopant (0073). The first host compound (herein understood to be similar to chemical formula 1) wherein :
PNG
media_image1.png
251
239
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Each X may comprise N (013; 0054) and Ar1 and Ar2 are preferably phenyl or biphenyl (0055).
The second host compound is represented by the following compound, which is herein understood to read on claimed formula 2 of claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
245
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein the equivalents of claimed Ar3 and Ar4 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted Ce-60 aryl; or a substituted or unsubstituted C260 heteroaryl containing at least one of O, N, Si and S (See 0019 and 0020); the equivalent of claimed L1 and L2 are each independently a single bond (0021); or a substituted or unsubstituted C2-60 arylene(0021); the equivalent of claimed, R11 to R14 are each independently hydrogen; deuterium; halogen; hydroxy; nitrile; nitro; amino; a substituted or unsubstituted C2-60 alkyl; a substituted or unsubstituted C2. go alkoxy; a substituted or unsubstituted C2-¢0 alkenyl; a substituted or unsubstituted aryl; a substituted or unsubstituted C260 heteroaryl containing at least one of O, N, Si and S (0023) and each of the equivalents of claimed, b and e are each independently an integer of 1 to 4, and c and d are each independently an integer of 1 to 3 (0023). LG Chem further teaches the claimed compound wherein AR3 and AR4 read on the amended claims (see broad teaching cited above, and examples on page 23 (left column), page 24 (right column), page 25, page 27, (left column)). Furthermore, LG Chem teaches the organic light emitting composition of claim 1 wherein L1 and L2 are each a single bond (0017+).
LG Chem teaches the organic light emitting composition of claim 1 wherein the equivalents of R11 and R14 are hydrogen (0023 wherein R2 and R3 are hydrogen).
With regards to claim 11, LG Chem teaches the organic light emitting composition of said claim (0068+).
While LG Chem teaches the first host material is similar to chemical equation 1, said reference fails to teach a host compound meeting the claimed chemical formula. However, Sugino teaches a light emitting compound which may comprise the compound of formula (2) (0014-herein understood to read on compound 1-A of claim 1):
PNG
media_image3.png
168
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sugino further teaches R1 and R2 may be condensed rings (0099; 1027); herein understood to be sufficiently specific to read on the compound of formula 1-1. Alternatively, Sugino teaches that R1 and R2 may further have a substituent as long as it does not inhibit the function of the compound of the present invention (0101). Each Y may comprise N ( 0057) and Ar1 and Ar2 may comprise phenyl or biphenylyl (0099).Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a compound of formula 1-1 in the light emitting compound of formula 2 as the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that said condensed ring substituent of formula 1-1 would not inhibit the function of the invention. It would have been obvious to utilize the light emitting compound of Sugino in place of the first host material disclosed in LG Chem. The motivation for doing so would have been that the compounds of Sugino are taught to have high emission efficiency, long emission lifetimes, and small deteriorations with time when used even under high temperature conditions.
With regards to claim 6, Sugino is understood to teach, or alternatively, render obvious at least the first/top row of claimed compounds for the reasons noted above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/031679 to Cho et al. (US 2019/0372012 A1 as English equivalent; referred to as "LG CHEM" in the office action; hereinafter "Cho") in view of JP 2016149473 A to Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546 A1 as English equivalent; hereinafter "Sugino"), Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection, arguing the claimed invention exhibits superior and advantageous effects provided by the claimed compound. In response to the examiner’ argument that the previously presented claims were not commensurate in scope with the data in the specification, claim 1 has been amended to further limit the claimed compounds to correspond to the species noted in the results. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Declarant contends the combination of the compound of Chemical Formulas 1-A, 1-B, or 1-C with the compound of Chemical Formula 2-1 yields results that are superior to those by
the compounds of Cho and Sugino. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as the argument is not commensurate in scope with the pending claims. For example, the specification does not contain data for many examples wherein neither Ar1 nor Ar 2 are phenyl. Furthermore, it is unclear the results of the specification can be extrapolated to species which are not tested. While Declarant states that the compounds of Chemical Formulas 1-A through 1-C exhibit substantially similar performance to one another, and that the compounds of Chemical Formula 2-1 likewise provide substantially similar performance among themselves, there is insufficient evidence supporting said conclusion.
Furthermore, said argument of unexpected results is not persuasive as the skilled artisan would expect the driving voltage, efficiency, and lifetime to be dependent upon other (unclaimed) variables such as dopant and dopant concentration.
For at least the foregoing reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims remain rejected for reasons set forth herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/00317650 teaches a novel compound and light emitting device comprising said compound. CN107973786 teaches compounds reading on Formula 1-A.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights