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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 10-15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-9 and 16 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The cancellation of claims 10-11 and 15 obviates the rejections of claims 10-11 and 15 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 1 overcomes:
the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2018/0090688 A1, hereafter Cha) in view of Huh et al. (KR 2017/0089408 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Huh),
the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2018/0090688 A1) in view of Huh et al. (KR 2017/0089408 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 1-7, 9, and 16 above, further in view of Conley et al. (US 2005/0211958 A1, hereafter Conley), and
the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2018/0090688 A1) in view of Suh et al. (KR 2018/0103738 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables, and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Suh) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 26-28 of the reply filed 10/30/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha/Huh, and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha/Huh/Conley set forth in the Office Action of 07/31/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Cha, Huh, and Conley fail to teach or suggest every feature of the amended claims.
The cited rejections refer to the Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Huh (2) (see section 58 of the last Office Action), wherein the electron transport layer material is the Position isomer of Compound p77-12 of Huh.
Applicant amended claim 1 to claim six specific compounds used as the electron transport layer material of the claimed organic light emitting device (see page 4 of the instant claim). The Compound p77-12 of Huh is not one of the six compounds; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, the organic light emitting device of Cha and Conley contains Compound 1-2 and BH of Cha (see section 40 of the last Office Action) and Compound Inv-12 of Conley (see section 64) which stills read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formulas 1 and 2.
The only deficiency of the organic light emitting device of Cha or the device of Cha as modified by Conley is the electron transport layer material; however, Cha does teach that an electron transport layer can be included in the organic light emitting device ([0136]). That is, there is no restriction to limit the electron transport layer material in the device of Cha and Conley. The 4th electron transport layer compound in the amended claim 1 would have been obvious based on the teaching of Han and Eum.
Han discloses a heterocyclic compound (Formula 1 in [0008]) used as the electron transport layer material of an organic light emitting device ([0057], [0139]). Han exemplifies Compound 43 ([0049]).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Han teaches that the compound of Han provides low driving voltage, and improved efficiency and service life ([0017]).
The Compound 43 of Han has similar structure as the fourth compound on page 4 of the instant claim 1. The only difference is that the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to the substituent of Ar2 of Formula 1 of Han (see the position pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be a nitrile group; however, Han does teach the substituent of the substituted aryl at the position Ar2 can be a nitrile group ([0023]).
Eum discloses an azine compound used as the electron transport layer material of an organic light emitting device ([0007]-[0009]), wherein the compound necessarily comprises a nitrile group.
PNG
media_image2.png
306
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eum teaches that the nitrile group provides strong electron withdrawing ability, improved electron migration speed , which is suitable for electron injection and electron transport ([0029]). Eum Exemplifies compound A-1, wherein a nitrile group is substituted to the para position of the biphenyl substituted to the triazine structure (Compound A-1 in [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 43 of Han by substituting the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to the substituent of Ar2 of Formula 1 of Han with a nitrile group, as taught by Cha, Han, and Eum.
The modification provides Compound of Han as modified by Eum which has identical structure as the fourth compound on page 4 of the instant claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
328
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Han and Eum comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound of Han as modified by Eum), and a cathode.
New grounds of rejections are applied.
Applicant’s arguments see page 28-29 of the reply filed 10/30/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha/Suh set forth in the Office Action of 07/31/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Cha and Suh fail to teach or suggest the specific electron transport layer compounds of the amended claim 1.
The cited rejections refer to the Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Suh (2) (see section 92 of the last Office Action), wherein the electron transport layer material is the Position isomer of Compound p27-5 of Suh.
Applicant amended claim 1 to claim six specific compounds used as the electron transport layer of the claimed organic light emitting device (see page 4 of the instant claim). The Compound p27-5 of Suh is not one of the six compounds; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, the organic light emitting device of Cha contains Compound 1-2 and BH of Cha (see section 92 of the last Office Action) which stills read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formulas 1 and 2.
The only deficiency of the organic light emitting device of Cha is the electron transport layer material; however, Cha does teach that an electron transport layer can be included in the organic light emitting device ([0136]). That is, there is no restriction to limit the electron transport layer material in the device of Cha. The 1st electron transport layer compound in the amended claim 1 would have been obvious based on the teaching of Lee.
Lee discloses a heterocyclic compound (Formula 1 in [0008]) used as the electron transport layer material of an organic light emitting device ([0249], [0425]). Lee exemplifies Compound 3-b-10 ([0222]).
PNG
media_image4.png
302
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches that the compound of Lee provides improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and/or improved lifetime ([0020]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Cha by incorporating an electron transport layer comprising the Compound 3-b-10 of Lee, as taught by Cha and Lee.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Lee comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound 3-b-10 of Lee), and a cathode.
The Compound 3-b-10 of Lee has similar structure as the claimed compound on page 4 of the instant claim 1 (hereafter Compound p4-1). The only difference is the substitution positions of the triazinyl, phenylene, and fluoranthenyl groups. The triazinyl group is substituted to the position 1, the phenylene group is substituted to the position 1’, and the fluoranthenyl group is substituted position 3” (see the annotated numbers in the figure above) while Applicant’s Compound p4-1 requires the triazinyl group to be substituted position 2, the phenylene group to be substituted position 8’, and the fluoranthenyl group to bs substituted to the position 2”.
The Compound 3-b-10 of Lee is a position isomer with similar compound in which the triazinyl group is substituted to the position 2, the phenylene group is substituted to the position 8’, and the fluoranthenyl group is substituted position 2”.
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 Compound 3-b-10 of Lee shown above such that the triazinyl group is substituted to the position 2, the phenylene group is substituted to the position 8’, and the fluoranthenyl group is substituted position 2”. A compound in which the triazinyl group is substituted to the position 2, the phenylene group is substituted to the position 8’, and the fluoranthenyl group is substituted position 2” would represent a position isomer of the Compound 3-b-10 of Lee. 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 Position isomer of Compound 3-b-10 of Lee which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound p4-1 of the instant claim 1.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Lee (2) comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Position isomer of Compound 3-b-10 of Lee), and a cathode.
New grounds of rejections are applied.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, the page 19 should be deleted since there is no structural formula or any claim language shown on page 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1-7, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2018/0090688 A1, hereafter Cha) in view of Han et al. (US 2018/0351107 A1, hereafter Han) and Eum et al. (US 2024/0138173 A1, hereafter Eum).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 16, Cha discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0008], [0018]). Cha exemplifies Compound 1-2 ([0146]).
Cha teaches the structure of the organic light emitting device ([0091]). Cha exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising an anode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), and a cathode (Al) (Example 1-2 in [0191]-[0198]).
PNG
media_image5.png
338
591
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-2 of Cha has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 1 and one of embodiments of claim 5 (i.e. the 2nd compound on page 14). The Compound BH of Cha has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 of claim 1 and one of embodiments of claim 5 (i.e. the 17th compound on page 26).
The device of Cha does not comprise an electron transport layer comprising a triazine compound of Formula 3; however, Cha does teach that an electron transport layer can be included in the organic light emitting device ([0136]).
Han discloses a heterocyclic compound (Formula 1 in [0008]) used as the electron transport layer material of an organic light emitting device ([0057], [0139]). Han exemplifies Compound 43 ([0049]).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Han teaches that the compound of Han provides low driving voltage, and improved efficiency and service life ([0017]).
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 organic light emitting device of Cha by incorporating an electron transport layer comprising the Compound 43 of Han, as taught by Cha and Han.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide low driving voltage, and improved efficiency and service life based on the teaching of Han.
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). Substitution of electron transport 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 Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Han comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound 43 of Han), and a cathode.
The Compound 43 of Han has similar structure as the fourth compound on page 4 of the instant claim 1. The only difference is that the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to the substituent of Ar2 of Formula 1 of Han (see the position pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be a nitrile group; however, Han does teach Ar2 can be a substituted aryl ([0013]), and the substituent of the substituted aryl can be a nitrile group ([0023]).
Eum discloses an azine compound used as the electron transport layer material of an organic light emitting device ([0007]-[0009]), wherein the compound necessarily comprises a nitrile group.
PNG
media_image2.png
306
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eum teaches that the nitrile group provides strong electron withdrawing ability, improved electron migration speed , which is suitable for electron injection and electron transport ([0029]). Eum Exemplifies compound A-1, wherein a nitrile group is substituted to the para position of the biphenyl substituted to the triazine structure (Compound A-1 in [0087]).
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 43 of Han by substituting the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to the substituent of Ar2 of Formula 1 of Han with a nitrile group, as taught by Cha, Han, and Eum.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide strong electron withdrawing ability, improved electron migration speed , which is suitable for electron injection and electron transport, based on the teaching of Eum.
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). Substitution of the substituents of the aryl group at the position corresponding to Ar2 of Formula 1 of Han would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
With respect to the substitution position of the nitrile group. Eum teaches substitution of a nitrile group at the para position of the phenylene group substituted to the triazine group. However, even if Eum did not teach the substitution position, it would have been obvious to substitute a nitrile group at the para position of the biphenyl group in the Compound 43 of Han because the compound having identical structure as the Compound 43 of Han wherein a nitrile group is substituted to the other position than para of the biphenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar2 of Formula 1 of Han is a position isomer of the fourth compound on page 4 of the instant claim 1. See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II for position isomer.
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 Compound 43 of Han shown above such that the hydrogen at the para position of the biphenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar2 of formula 1 is substituted with a nitrile group. A compound in which the nitrile group is substituted other position of the para position of the Ar2 of Formula 1 of Han would represent a position isomer of the fourth compound on page 4 of the instant claim 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 Compound of Han as modified by Eum which has identical structure as the fourth compound on page 4 of the instant claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
328
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Han and Eum comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound of Han as modified by Eum), and a cathode.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2018/0090688 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2018/0351107 A1) and Eum et al. (US 2024/0138173 A1) as applied to claims 1-7, 9, and 16 above, further in view of Conley et al. (US 2005/0211958 A1, hereafter Conley).
Regarding claim 8, the Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Han and Eum reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound of Han as modified by Eum), and a cathode.
The host Compound BH of Cha does not have a phenyl or naphthyl group at the position 2 of the anthracene ring; however, Cha does teach that the host compound can be an anthracene derivative ([0134]). Cha teaches the anthracene host can be represented by Formula 2-A, wherein G11 can be naphthyl, G12 can be phenyl, the substituent at the position corresponding to G13 or G14 can be hydrogen or an unsubstituted aryl group ([0113]).
Conley discloses position-2 substituted anthracene compound used as the host of an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0010]). Conley exemplifies Inv-12 which is encompassed by the Formula 2-A of Cha ([0037]).
PNG
media_image6.png
332
550
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The compound Inv-12 of Conley reads on the Chemical Formula 2 of the instant claims.
Conley teaches that the compound of Conley provides good operational stability and high luminance yield ([0001], [0011]).
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 organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Han and Eum by substituting the host Compound BH of Cha with the compound Inv-12 of Conley, as taught by Cha and Conley.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide good operational stability and high luminance yield, based on the teaching of Conley.
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). Substitution of hosts represented by Formula 2-A of Cha 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 Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Han, Eum, and Conley comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Inv-12 of Conley as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound of Han as modified by Eum), and a cathode.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2018/0090688 A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR 2015/002417 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 16, Cha discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0008], [0018]). Cha exemplifies Compound 1-2 ([0146]).
Cha teaches the structure of the organic light emitting device ([0091]). Cha exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising an anode (ITO), a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), and a cathode (Al) (Example 1-2 in [0191]-[0198]).
PNG
media_image5.png
338
591
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-2 of Cha has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 1 and one of embodiments of claim 5 (i.e. the 2nd compound on page 14). The Compound BH of Cha has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 of claim 1 and one of embodiments of claim 5 (i.e. the 17th compound on page 26).
The device of Cha does not comprise an electron transport layer comprising a triazine compound of Formula 3; however, Cha does teach that an electron transport layer can be included in the organic light emitting device ([0136]).
Lee discloses a heterocyclic compound (Formula 1 in [0008]) used as the electron transport layer material of an organic light emitting device ([0249], [0425]). Lee exemplifies Compound 3-b-10 ([0222]).
PNG
media_image4.png
302
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches that the compound of Lee provides improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and/or improved lifetime ([0020]).
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 organic light emitting device of Cha by incorporating an electron transport layer comprising the Compound 3-b-10 of Lee, as taught by Cha and Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the organic light emitting device with improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime based on the teaching of Lee.
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). Substitution of electron transport 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 Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Lee comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound 3-b-10 of Lee), and a cathode.
The Compound 3-b-10 of Lee has similar structure as the claimed compound on page 4 of the instant claim 1 (hereafter Compound p4-1). The only difference is the substitution positions of the triazinyl, phenylene, and fluoranthenyl groups. The triazinyl group is substituted to the position 1, the phenylene group is substituted to the position 1’, and the fluoranthenyl group is substituted position 3” (see the annotated numbers in the figure above) while Applicant’s Compound p4-1 requires the triazinyl group to be substituted position 2, the phenylene group to be substituted position 8’, and the fluoranthenyl group to bs substituted to the position 2”.
The Compound 3-b-10 of Lee is a position isomer with similar compound in which the triazinyl group is substituted to the position 2, the phenylene group is substituted to the position 8’, and the fluoranthenyl group is substituted position 2”.
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 Compound 3-b-10 of Lee shown above such that the triazinyl group is substituted to the position 2, the phenylene group is substituted to the position 8’, and the fluoranthenyl group is substituted position 2”. A compound in which the triazinyl group is substituted to the position 2, the phenylene group is substituted to the position 8’, and the fluoranthenyl group is substituted position 2” would represent a position isomer of the Compound 3-b-10 of Lee. 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 Position isomer of Compound 3-b-10 of Lee which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound p4-1 of the instant claim 1.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Lee (2) comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Position isomer of Compound 3-b-10 of Lee), and a cathode.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2018/0090688 A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR 2015/002417 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 1-7, 9, and 16 above, further in view of Conley et al. (US 2005/0211958 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Lee (2) reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Compound BH as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Position isomer of Compound 3-b-10 of Lee), and a cathode.
The host Compound BH of Cha does not have a phenyl or naphthyl group at the position 2 of the anthracene ring; however, Cha does teach that the host compound can be an anthracene derivative ([0134]). Cha teaches the anthracene host can be represented by Formula 2-A, wherein G11 can be naphthyl, G12 can be phenyl, the substituent at the position corresponding to G13 or G14 can be hydrogen or an unsubstituted aryl group ([0113]).
Conley discloses position-2 substituted anthracene compound used as the host of an organic light emitting device ([0001], [0010]). Conley exemplifies Inv-12 which is encompassed by the Formula 2-A of Cha ([0037]).
PNG
media_image6.png
332
550
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The compound Inv-12 of Conley reads on the Chemical Formula 2 of the instant claims.
Conley teaches that the compound of Conley provides good operational stability and high luminance yield ([0001], [0011]).
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 organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Lee by substituting the host Compound BH of Cha with the compound Inv-12 of Conley, as taught by Cha and Conley.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide good operational stability and high luminance yield, based on the teaching of Conley.
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). Substitution of hosts represented by Formula 2-A of Cha 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 Organic light emitting device of Cha as modified by Lee and Conley comprising an anode, a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1-2 of Cha), a light emitting layer (Inv-12 of Conley as a host, Compound BD as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Position isomer of Compound 3-b-10 of Lee), and a cathode.
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