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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 09/24/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 1 and 14 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2021/0391544 A1, hereafter Han),
the rejections of claims 6-7, 10-11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2021/0391544 A1) in view of Mu et al. (CN 110156611 A),
the rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2016/0126472 A1, hereafter Oh),
the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2016/0126472 A1), as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-15 above, further in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0391544 A1), and
the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13-15 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12-13, and 15 of US Patent 11,827,623 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘623) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 29-33 of the reply filed 09/24/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2021/0391544 A1, hereafter Han) and the rejections of claims 6-7, 10-11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2021/0391544 A1) in view of Mu et al. (CN 110156611 A) set forth in the Office Action of 06/24/2024 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Han fails to disclose a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of amended claim 1.
The cited rejections refer to the Compound 8 of Han (see section 102 of the last Office Action).
The amended claims 1 and 14 does not allow the substituents of the Q2 to be an amine group and to be linked to form a ring. Thus, Compound 8 of Han does not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 12-36 of the reply filed 09/24/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mu et al. (CN 110156611 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Mu), and the rejections of claims 6 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (CN 110156611 A) set forth in the Office Action of 06/24/2024 and the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed on 09/24/2025 (hereafter the Declaration) have been considered.
Applicant argues that Mu fail to disclose a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of amended claim 1.
The cited rejections refer to the Compound 2-58 of Mu (see section 106 of the last Office Action).
The amended claims 1 and 14 does not allow the substituents of the Q2 to be a triazinyl group. Thus, Compound 2-58 of Mu does not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims.
However, for the following reasons, the reference is still applicable to make a new ground of rejection.
Mu discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer containing a compound of Formula (II) and a compound of Formula (III) as hosts ([0034]). Mu discloses Compound (2-58) ([0042]) as the Formula (II) of Mu ([0047]).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2-58 of Mu has a phenylene group at the position corresponding to L1 (or L2 or L3) of Formula (II) of Mu (i.e. see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above), which does not read on the limitation of the Q1 of Applicant’s Formula 1.
However, Mu does teach that L to L3 can be each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C40 arylene group (page 15). Mu exemplifies biphenylene group as the L1 (or L2 or L3) (see examples on page 16-18 including at least Compound (2-58)).
Thus, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2-58 of Mu by substituting the phenylene group at the position corresponding to L1 (or L2 or L3) of Formula (II) of Mu, as taught by Mu.
PNG
media_image2.png
335
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound 2-58 of Mu which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, wherein Q2 is a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl group (i.e. phenyl); and the substituent of the substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl group is a C6 to C60 monocyclic aryl group (i.e. phenyl), meeting all the limitations of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 of the instant claims.
Applicant argues that the experimental data (Experimental Example 2 in Table 7 of the instant specification) demonstrates that the comparative compound (Compound C of Mu in Table 7 of the Declaration) from the cited references fail to achieve superior performance exhibited by the claimed invention.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
Applicant compares the properties of the inventive organic light emitting device (Example 48 in Table 7 of the specification) comprising the inventive compounds (Compound 1-7 as the host) with the comparative device (the third Comparative Example on page 3 of the Declaration) comprising the comparative compounds (Compound C as the host). Applicant shows that the inventive device provides lower driving voltage, higher emission efficiency, and longer lifetime than the comparative device. However, it is unclear whether the properties of the inventive devices are unexpected for the following reasons.
First, it is unclear the data supports the unexpected and superior results because the comparison was not made to the closest prior art.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
PNG
media_image3.png
554
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mu discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a compound of Formula (I) (see the figure above) used as the hole transfer layer material ([0008]-[0009], [0031]) and a mixture of a compound of Formula (II) and a compound of Formula (III) as the host materials ([0034]). The closest prior art of Mu requires a compound of Formula (I) of Mu as the hole transfer layer material. However, the third comparative device in the data uses 2-TNATA as the hole injection layer material and NPB as the hole transfer layer material. None of them reads on the Formula (I) of Mu. Thus, the comparative device is not the closest prior art.
Second, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The inventive device uses 2-TNATA as the hole injection layer material and NPB as the hole transfer layer material. However, none of the instant claims require 2-TNATA as the hole injection layer material and NPB as the hole transfer layer material. The closest prior art by Mu requires the hole transfer layer material to be represented by the Formula (I) of Mu which does not read on 2-TNATA or NPB. The reason why the inventive Example 48 provides better performance than the third Comparative Example may be because the device uses a particular combination of materials 2-TNATA in the hole injection layer and NPB in the hole transfer layer, which is not required in the instant claims. Thus, the data is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
With respect to the commensurate in scope with claimed invention, the Examiner points out MPEP 716.02(d), as recited below.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
For at least this reason, the argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 33-36 of the reply filed 09/24/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2016/0126472 A1, hereafter Oh), the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2016/0126472 A1), as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-15 above, further in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0391544 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 06/24/2024 and the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed on 09/24/2025 (hereafter the Declaration) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 36-37 of the reply filed 09/24/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13-15 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7-8, 12-13, and 15 of US Patent 11,827,623 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘623) set forth in the Office Action of 06/24/2024 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites “Chemical Formula 2:”. However, no structure of the Chemical Formula 2 is provided. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which structure is referred to for the Chemical Formula 2, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the limitation of the Chemical Formula 2 of the claim 12 has same as the limitation of the Chemical Formula 2 of the instant claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 2016/0020404 A1, hereafter Ito ‘404).
Regarding claims 1-4, Ito ‘404 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first compound of Formula 1 as the electron transfer layer material and a second compound of Formula 2 as the light emitting layer material ([0009]-[0010], [0013]) and exemplifies a compound 2-52 as the second compound ([0021]).
PNG
media_image4.png
216
481
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2-52 of Ito ‘404 reads on all the features of Applicant’s Formula 1.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-4, 6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (CN 110156611 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Mu).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, and 8-15, Mu discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a compound of Formula (I) used as the hole transfer layer material ([0008]-[0009], [0031]). Mu teaches the organic light emitting device can comprise a light emitting layer containing a compound of Formula (II) and a compound of Formula (III) as hosts ([0034]). Mu exemplifies Compound (2-58) ([0042]) as the Formula (II) and Compound (3-31) as the Formula (III) ([0047]).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound (3-31) of Mu is identical to Applicant’s Compound 3-32 of claim 9.
Mu does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising both Compound (2-58) and Compound (3-31); however, Mu does teach that the organic light emitting device can comprise a light emitting layer containing a compound of Formula (II) and a compound of Formula (III) as hosts ([0034]).
Mu teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a hole transfer layer (Compound 1-30), a light emitting layer (Compound 2-40 as a host and Compound 3-31 as a host with the weight ratio of 1:2, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode (Example 8 in Table 1, [0171]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2-58 of Mu by incorporating it into the first host material of the organic light emitting device of Mu, as taught by Mu.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the first host materials of Mu would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Mu comprising a first electrode, a hole transfer layer (Compound 1-30 of Mu), a light emitting layer (Compound 2-58 of Mu as a host and Compound 3-31 of Mu as a host with the weight ratio of 1:2, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the hole transfer layer and the light emitting layer are an organic material layer, and the light emitting layer materials are a composition.
The Compound 2-58 of Mu has a phenylene group at the position corresponding to L1 (or L2 or L3) of Formula (II) of Mu (i.e. see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above), which does not read on the limitation of the Q1 of Applicant’s Formula 1. However, Mu does teach that L1 to L3 can be each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C40 arylene group ([0037]). Mu exemplifies biphenylene group as the L1 (or L2 or L3) (see examples in [0040] including at least Compounds (2-39, 2-43, 2-47)).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2-58 of Mu by substituting the phenylene group at the position corresponding to L1 (or L2 or L3) of Formula (II) of Mu with a biphenylene group, as taught by Mu.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified bridge structures at the position corresponding to L1 (or L2 or L3) of Formula (II) of Mu would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of exemplified bridge structures at the position corresponding to L1 (or L2 or L3) of Formula (II) of Mu in the disclosure. The selection of biphenylene as L1 (or L2 or L3) of Formula (II) of Mu would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
PNG
media_image2.png
335
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound 2-58 of Mu which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, wherein L2 is a direct bond; Q2 is a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl group (i.e. phenyl); and the substituent of the substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl group is a C6 to C60 monocyclic aryl group (i.e. phenyl), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4.
The modification also provides Modified organic light emitting device of Mu comprising a first electrode, a hole transfer layer (Compound 1-30 of Mu), a light emitting layer (Modified compound 2-58 of Mu as a host and Compound 3-31 of Mu as a host with the weight ratio of 1:2, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the hole transfer layer and the light emitting layer are an organic material layer, and the light emitting layer materials are a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 6 and 8-15.
Claims 6, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2016/0020404 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 10-11 and 13, Ito ‘404 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first compound of Formula 1 as the electron transfer layer material and a second compound of Formula 2 as the light emitting layer material ([0009]-[0010], [0013]) and exemplifies a compound 2-52 as the second compound ([0021]). The Compound 2-52 of Ito ‘404 reads on all the features of Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Ito ‘404 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 2-52 of Ito ‘404; however, Ito ‘404 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), an light emitting layer, an electron transfer layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the light emitting layer comprises the second compound of Formula 2 ([0013]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2-52 of Ito ‘404 by incorporating it into the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Ito ‘404.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the light emitting layer materials of Ito ‘404 in the device of Ito ‘404 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Ito ‘404 comprising a first electrode (anode), an light emitting layer (Compound 2-52 of Ito ‘404), an electron transfer layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the light emitting layer the electron transfer layer are an organic material layer.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2016/0020404 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Ito et al. (US 2015/0318487 A1, hereafter Ito ‘487).
Regarding claims 8-9, the Modified organic light emitting device of Ito ‘404 reads on all the features of claim 6 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), an light emitting layer (Compound 2-52 of Ito ‘404), an electron transfer layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the light emitting layer the electron transfer layer are an organic material layer.
The device does not comprise a bicarbazole compound of Formula 2.
Ito ‘487 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a buffer layer disposed between the light emitting layer and the electron transfer layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises a bicarbazole compound (Formula 1) and a triphenylene compound (Formula 2) ([0019]-[0053]).
Ito ‘487 exemplifies a Compound BF1 and BF5 as the bicarbazole compound and triphenylene compound, respectively (Example 1-1). The Compound BF5 has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 3-1.
PNG
media_image5.png
246
540
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ito ‘487 teaches the organic light emitting device comprising the buffer layer materials of Ito ‘487 provides a low driving voltage, a high efficiency, a high luminance, and a long lifetime ([0055]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Ito ‘404 by incorporating a buffer layer disposed between the light emitting layer and the electron transfer layer and comprises Compound BF5 of Ito ‘487, as taught by Ito ‘404 and Ito ‘487.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a low driving voltage, a high efficiency, a high luminance, and a long lifetime, based on the teaching of Ito ‘487.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Ito ‘404 as modified by Ito ‘487 comprising a first electrode (anode), an light emitting layer (Compound 2-52 of Ito ‘404), a buffer layer (Compound BF5 of Ito ‘487 and Compound BF1 of Ito ‘487) an electron transfer layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the light emitting layer, the buffer layer, and the electron transfer layer are an organic material layer.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jatsch et al. (US 2014/0275530 A1, hereafter Jatsch).
Regarding claims 1-4, Jatsch discloses a compound (Formula (1) to (4)) used as the host material of an organic light emitting device ([0001]) and exemplifies Compound 79 ([0045]).
PNG
media_image6.png
290
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 79 of Jatsch has hydrogen at the position corresponding to [R2]q of the Formula 5 of Jatsch; however, Jatsch does teach that R2 can be an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atom ([0013]) and q can be 1 ([0019]). Jatsch exemplifies a benzene group as the substituent R2 (see examples including at least compound 146 in [0045]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 79 of Jatsch by substituting the hydrogen at the substitution position 1 (see the annotated numbers in the figure above) with a phenyl group, as taught by Jatsch.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituent at the position corresponding to R2 with a phenyl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are finite number of substitution positions to substitute a phenyl group as the R2 in the benzene ring of the triphenylene moiety (i.e. a phenyl can be substituted to the positions 1, 2 and 4 in the figure above). The selection of position 1 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Furthermore, a compound represented by Formula 5 of Jatsch wherein a phenyl group of -[R2]q is substituted to the position 1 is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the phenyl group is substituted to any one of the positions 2 and 4.
PNG
media_image7.png
294
570
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Jatsch (1) which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4.
Regarding claim 5, the Modified compound of Jatsch (1) reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The Modified compound of Jatsch (1) has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 2-64. The differences are: 1) the triphenylene group is substituted to the position 3 of the terminal benzene ring of the carbazole group (see the annotated numbers in the figure above) while Applicant’s Compound 2-54 require the triphenylene group is substituted to the position 4, and 2) the benzothiophene group is substituted to the positions 7-8 of the benzene ring of the carbazole group while Applicant’s Compound 2-54 require the benzo thiophene is substituted to the positions 6-7.
However, Jatsch does teach that the benzothienocarbazole moiety can be represented by Formula (2) ([0007]) indicating that the benzothiophene moiety can be substituted to the position 6-7 of the benzene ring of the carbazole group above; and the triphenylene group of Formula 5 can be substituted to any R group of the Formula (3) ([0015]) indicating the triphenylene group can be substituted to any position including the position 4 of the benzene ring of the carbazole group.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Jatsch (1) by substituting the benzothieno group to the positions 6-7 of the benzene ring of the carbazole group and substituting the triphenylene group to the position 4 of the benzene ring of the carbazole group, as taught by Jatsch.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the Modified compound of Jatsch (1) is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the triphenylene group is substituted to the position 4 of the terminal benzene ring of the carbazole group and the benzothiophene group is substituted to the positions 6-7 of the benzene ring of the carbazole group.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and 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). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Modified compound of Jatsch (1) shown above such that the triphenylene group is substituted to the position 4 of the terminal benzene ring of the carbazole group and the benzothiophene group is substituted to the positions 6-7 of the benzene ring of the carbazole group. A compound in which the triphenylene group is substituted to the position 4 of the terminal benzene ring of the carbazole group and the benzothiophene group is substituted to the positions 6-7 of the benzene ring of the carbazole group would represent a position isomer of the Modified compound of Jatsch (1). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified compound of Jatsch (2) which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 2-64.
Claim 6-7, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jatsch et al. (US 2014/0275530 A1) as applied to claim 1 as outlined above, further in view of Ito et al. (US 2015/0333266 A1, hereafter Ito ‘266).
Regarding claims 6-7, 10-11, and 13, the Modified compound of Jatsch (1) reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
Jatsch does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Modified compound of Jatsch (1); however, Jatsch does teach that the compound of Jatsch can be used for an electron transport layer materials ([0070]).
Jatsch teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, an electron transfer layer, and a cathode ([0061]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Jatsch (1) by incorporating it into the electron transfer layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Jatsch.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of electron transfer layer materials of Jatsch in the device of Jatsch would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Jatsch (1) comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, an electron transfer layer (Modified compound of Jatsch (1)), and a cathode.
The light emitting layer of the device does not comprise triphenylene compound.
Ito ‘266 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an emission layer containing a pyrene compound of Formula 1 as a dopant and an anthracene compound of formula 2 as a host ([0009], [0152]).
Ito ‘266 exemplifies a triphenylene compound ([0150], the 6th compound on page 30, hereafter Compound p30-6). The Compound p30-6 reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 1.
PNG
media_image8.png
221
502
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ito ‘266 teaches that the triphenylene compound provides an organic light emitting device with high efficiency and long lifespan ([0151]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Jatsch (1) by incorporating Compound p30-6 of Ito ‘266 and a pyrene compound of Ito ‘266 in the light emitting layer of the device, as taught by Jatsch and Ito ‘266.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide an organic light emitting device with high efficiency and long lifespan, based on the teaching of Ito ‘266.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution the light emitting layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides an Organic light emitting device of Jatsch as modified by Ito ‘266 comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound p30-6 of Ito ‘266 as a host and a pyrene compound of Ito ‘266 as a dopant), an electron transfer layer (Modified compound of Jatsch (1)), and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer and the electron transfer layer are an organic material layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 6-7, 10-11, and 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786