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 .
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2017/0309841) in view of Hwang (US 2009/0295274) (Hwang).
In reference to claims 9-10 and 12-20, Kim teaches a material of formula (2) as shown below (Kim [0013])
PNG
media_image1.png
150
253
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula (2), Xa to Xh are each hydrogen (Kim [0017]), La is a single bond (Kim [0026]), Ma is a 6 membered heteroaryl (e.g. triazine) substituted with two phenyl groups one of which is further substituted with deuterium and a triphenylsilyl (Kim [0031]) or, in other words, a compound of formula H-10 further substituted with deuterium.
Kim discloses the compound of formula (2) that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula (2), Xa to Xh are each hydrogen, La is a single bond, Ma is a 6 membered heteroaryl (e.g. triazine) substituted with two phenyl groups one of which is further substituted with a triphenylsilyl or, in other words, a compound of formula H-10 further substituted with deuterium. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for compound of formula (2) to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Kim does not expressly teach that the host compound should comprise deuterium as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Hwang teaches, in analogous art, that partial or full deuteration of protons of semiconducting organic compounds, high voltage stability of the devices can be increased, turn on voltage can be decreased and therefor a usage lifetime can be prolonged efficiently (Hwang [0025]).
In light of the motivation of using partial deuteration as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the partial deuteration as described by Hwang in order to increase stability, decreased turn on voltage and prolong device lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 9: Reads on wherein X1 to X3 are each N, a1 is 0, Ar1 is Formula 2-3, b4 is 0, a2 and a3 are each 0, Ar2 is formula 2-1, b5 is 0, and Ar3 is formula 2-1, b5 is 5, and R1 is Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) or D, and Q1, Q2 and Q3 are each phenyl.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula wherein at least one is different.
For Claim 12: Reads on wherein one is 2-3.
For Claim 13: Reads on condition i.
For Claim 14: Reads on condition i.
For Claim 15: Reads on 2-1(1) 2-1(2) and 2-3(1).
For Claim 16: Reads on 2-1(2).
For Claim 17: Reads on X1 to X3 are each N.
For Claim 18: Reads up to 100% deuteration.
For Claim 19: Reads at least one of R1 is D.
For Claim 20: Reads on e.g. compound 1.
In reference to claims 10, the claim further limits the L1 to L3, which are optional embodiments of claim 9 (i.e. a1 to a3 are 0 to 3) and therefore not required. As such, claim 10 is rejected based on similar reasons to claim 9.
In reference to claims 1-5 and 7, Kim in view of Hwang teaches devices comprising an anode, cathode, emitting layer, electron transport layer, hole transport layer and including a compound of formula 2 as a host in an emitting layer with dopants such as compound D-96 as shown below as a phosphorescent dopant, the electron transport layer includes EI-1 that is an alkali metal complex, and the hole transport region comprises HI-2 also known as HAT-CN. The office notes that the drawing of D-96 includes an obvious drawing error.
PNG
media_image3.png
376
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
While Kim does not exemplify a device with the claimed features, Kim teaches that such application is one of the possible device applications of the device of Kim. The ordinarily skilled artisan would find using the device of Kim in the application taught by Kim immediately obvious without an explicit example.
In reference to claim 8, Kim in view of Hwang teaches the device as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the devices of Kim can be used in configurations comprising two or more (e.g. 3) electroluminescent layers to emit white light (Kim [0055]).
While Kim does not exemplify a device with the claimed features, Kim teaches that such application is one of the possible device applications of the device of Kim. The ordinarily skilled artisan would find using the device of Kim in the application taught by Kim immediately obvious without an explicit example.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in lifetime, efficiency and driving voltage, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, the comparison between the comparative examples and the inventive examples is not directed to the claimed difference. The difference from the prior art materials and those of the instant claims is only the inclusion of deuterium atoms. No comparison presented shows a comparison between a compound that has deuterium and an otherwise identical compound that only has hydrogen atoms. Further, none of the comparative examples show the compound H-10 of the prior art that is pointed to as a compound that differs only by the inclusion of optional deuterium atoms, that have known improvements as taught by Hwang, including improvements in lifetime and driving voltage.
Third, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, each of the example materials include at least one triazine group and at least one group of formula 2-3but the claimed materials do not require these groups to be present. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming thousands of more compounds and even more devices. As applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by Kim, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights