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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/17/2025, which amends claims 1, 11-14, and 18-20. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 12/17/2025, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 2146105 B1) and Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202275 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2018/0026207 A1), claim 3 as being unpatentable over Song and Ogasawara above, and further in view of Igarashi et al. (US 2001/0008711 A1), and claims 14-17 and 19 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 2146105 B1) in view of Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202276 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections over Kita et al. (JP 2004/273190 A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (JP 2004/273190 A, using the provided translation for references) and Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202275 A1) in view of Seo et al. (WO 2020/109927 A1, using US 2021/0395271 A1 as an official translation and for references).
With respect to claim 1, Kita discloses a luminescence device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a hole transport region on the anode, an emission layer on the hole transport region, an electron transport region on the emission layer, and a second electrode (a cathode) on the electron transport region (paragraph 0078). The organic region comprises a carbazole compound of general formula [1], such as compound (1) (paragraph 0051), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from general formula [1] which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
374
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kita also teaches that R3, R6, R11, and R14 are an aryl group (paragraph 0051), such as biphenyl (paragraph 0044, line 10).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms comprising nitrogen (9-carbazole), L is an alkyl-substituted arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), ring A is an alkyl-substituted aryl ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), a and b are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, and Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 2.
In Formula 2, Y is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and ring B is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene).
However, Kita does not teach nor fairly suggest selection of an ortho-biphenyl substituent at this location.
In analogous art, Ogasawara teaches an organic electroluminescent device which suppresses crystallization of a material to be used in an organic electroluminescent device (abstract).
Ogasawara teaches that crystallization is effectively reduced by using a compound of Formula (1) (paragraph 0005), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
26
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Ar1 is represented by Formula (2) (paragraph 0012), or more specifically, a group represented by Formula (3) (paragraph 0014), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
158
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, n1 is 0 and R1 is not present (paragraph 0015).
Ogasawara exemplifies this group in bicarbazole structures such as Compound (1-1) (page 6), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
260
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Kita to comprise the o-biphenyl group of Ogasawara in order to suppress crystallinity of the compound, as taught by Ogasawara.
However, both Kita (paragraph 0023), and Ogasawara (paragraph 0052), teach use of the bicarbazole compound in the emitting layer.
In analogous art, Seo teaches materials for use in an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Seo teaches that in the case where a material has a carbazole skeleton, a compound having a bicarbazole skeleton is preferred because of its favorable hole-transport property and high stability (paragraph 0137).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Kita and Ogasawara in a hole transport layer as Seo demonstrates that prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, an artisan of ordinary skill would have known that bicarbazole compounds have favorable hole-transport property and high stability, and were thus suitable for hole-transport applications.
With respect to claim 2, Kita, Ogasawara, and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Kita teaches that the device comprises a hole injection layer between the anode and the hole transport layer, and the compound is in the hole transport layer, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and X is a substituted heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms comprising a pyrrole ring (carbazole) as pictured above.
With respect to claim 5, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 4, and X of the Formula 1 is of Formula 3-1 when R3 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (biphenyl) and c is 2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 6, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and ring B of Formula 2 is an unsubstituted aryl ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Formula 2 is of Formula 4 when g is 0 and Ra is not present, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 8, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound (4), pictured and discussed above, is derived from general formula [1] which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
374
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kita also teaches that Z1 can be benzene (unsubstituted, page 6, lines 5-6).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when L is an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 carbon atoms.
Kita includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kita being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a benzene ring from the finite list of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which, when used in an organic electroluminescent device, results in superior luminance and luminance lifetime (paragraph 0163), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 9, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Formula 1 is of Formula 5 when e is 1 and R5 is alkyl (methyl).
With respect to claim 10, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Ar1 and Ar2 of Formula 1 are the same, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 11, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 9, and Formula 5 is of Formula 6-1 when c is 2 and R3 is an aryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (biphenyl), f is 1 and R6 is alkyl (methyl), and n is 1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 13, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that Kita is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the substituent on the biphenylene skeleton.
Given the general formula and teachings of Kita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound (4) in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Kita, Ogasawara and Seo and possess the properties taught by Kita. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer is instant compound 24.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (JP 2004/273190 A, using the provided translation for references) and Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202275 A1) in view of Seo et al. (WO 2020/109927 A1, using US 2021/0395271 A1 as an official translation and for references) as applied above, and further in view of Igarashi et al. (US 2001/0008711 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Kita, Ogasawara and Seo teach the luminescence device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Kita, Ogasawara, nor Seo teach nor fairly suggest the compound in an electron blocking layer.
In analogous art, Igarashi teaches an organic light -emitting device comprising a plurality of organic compound thin layers (abstract) such as a hole transporting layer (paragraph 0054).
Igarashi teaches that hole-injecting and hole-transporting layers have the function of transporting holes and the function of blocking electron injected from the cathode.
In this respect Kita, Ogasawara, and Seo teach an electron blocking layer as Igarashi teaches that hole-transport layers may function as electron blocking layers because hole-transport compounds have electron-blocking properties.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Kita, Ogasawara, and Seo in an electron blocking layer as Kita, Ogasawara, and Seo teach the compound in a hole transport layer, and Igarashi teaches that hole-transport layers block electrons.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (JP 2004/273190 A, using the provided translation for references) and further in view of Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202275 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Kita discloses compound (4) (paragraph 0051), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from general formula [1] which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
374
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kita also teaches that R3, R6, R11, and R14 are an aryl group (paragraph 0051), such as biphenyl (paragraph 0044, line 10).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms comprising nitrogen (9-carbazole), L is an alkyl-substituted arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), ring A is an alkyl-substituted aryl ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), a and b are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, and Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 2.
In Formula 2, Y is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and ring B is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene).
However, Kita does not teach nor fairly suggest selection of an ortho-biphenyl substituent at this location.
In analogous art, Ogasawara teaches an organic electroluminescent device which suppresses crystallization of a material to be used in an organic electroluminescent device (abstract).
Ogasawara teaches that crystallization is effectively reduced by using a compound of Formula (1) (paragraph 0005), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
26
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Ar1 is represented by Formula (2) (paragraph 0012), or more specifically, a group represented by Formula (3) (paragraph 0014), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
158
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, n1 is 0 and R1 is not present (paragraph 0015).
Ogasawara exemplifies this group in bicarbazole structures such as Compound (1-1) (page 6), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
260
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
When the bicarbazole structure of Kita is modified by the ortho-biphenyl group of Ogasawara, it forms a group that meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when B is an unsubstituted aryl ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (o-phenylene), and Y is an unsubstituted aryl ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Kita to comprise the o-biphenyl group of Ogasawara in order to suppress crystallinity of the compound, as taught by Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 15, Kita and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 14, and X of the Formula 1 is of Formula 3-1 when R3 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (biphenyl) and c is 2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 16, Kita and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 14, and Formula 2 is of Formula 4 when g is 0 and Ra is not present, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 17, Kita and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 14, and Formula 1 is of Formula 5 when e is 1 and R5 is alkyl (methyl), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 18, Kita and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 17, and Formula 5 is of Formula 6-1 when c is 2 and R3 is an aryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (biphenyl), f is 1 and R6 is alkyl (methyl), and n is 1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 20, Kita and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 14, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that Kita is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the substituent on the biphenylene skeleton.
Given the general formula and teachings of Kita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound (4) in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Kita, Ogasawara and Seo and possess the properties taught by Kita. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer is instant compound 24.
Claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2015/0105201 A, using the provided translation for references) and Chung et al. (US 2017/0047526 A1), and further in view of Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202275 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a luminescence device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a hole transport region on the anode, an emission layer on the hole transport region, an electron transport region on the emission layer, and a second electrode (a cathode) on the electron transport region (paragraph 0171). The hole-transport layer comprises a compound of chemical formula 1 (paragraph 0173), such as compound 611 (page 54 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
258
506
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from chemical formula 1 (page 18 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
332
352
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Lee also teaches that A2 is biphenyl (paragraph 0107, line 3), and that R1 and R2 are phenyl (paragraph 0106, line 3). Examiner notes that Lee is also not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the carbazole moieties to the linking group, L.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which, when applied to an organic light-emitting device as a hole transport material, lowers the driving voltage of the device, improves the luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0026), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound 611 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as hole transport materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms comprising nitrogen (carbazole), L is a direct linkage, ring A is an unsubstituted aryl ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), a and b are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, and Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 2.
In Formula 2, Y is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and ring B is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene).
However, Lee does not fairly suggest selection of an o-phenylene linking group at a position analogous to instant ring A.
In analogous art, Chung teaches a compound suitable for use in a hole transport layer (paragraphs 0236-0238) comprising a carbazole moiety and another condensed heterocyclic compound linked through an o-phenylene group (Abstract and Formula 1).
Chung teaches that when the two moieties are linked through an ortho position, the conjugation length of the compound shortens, giving the compound high triplet energy, which may make it suitable for an electronic device (paragraph 0226).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to link the two heterocyclic moieties in the compound of Lee through an o-phenylene group in order to shorten the conjugation length of the compound, giving it high triplet energy, as taught by Chung.
However, neither Lee nor Chung teaches nor fairly suggests selection of ortho-biphenyl substituents at a location analogous to instant Ar1 and Ar2.
In analogous art, Ogasawara teaches an organic electroluminescent device which suppresses crystallization of a material to be used in an organic electroluminescent device (abstract).
Ogasawara teaches that crystallization is effectively reduced by using a compound of Formula (1) (paragraph 0005), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
26
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Ar1 is represented by Formula (2) (paragraph 0012), or more specifically, a group represented by Formula (3) (paragraph 0014), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
158
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, n1 is 0 and R1 is not present (paragraph 0015).
Ogasawara exemplifies this group in carbazole structures such as Compound (1-1) (page 6), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
260
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbazole moieties of the compound of Lee to comprise the o-biphenyl substituent of Ogasawara in order to suppress crystallinity of the compound, as taught by Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 2, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Lee teaches that the device comprises a hole injection layer between the anode and the hole transport layer (paragraph 0171), and the compound is in the hole transport layer, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 3, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Lee also teaches that the device comprises an electron blocking layer (paragraph 0175) and the electron blocking layer may comprise the compound (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound in an electron blocking layer, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 4, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and X is a substituted heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms comprising a pyrrole ring (carbazole) as pictured above.
With respect to claim 5, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 4, and X of the Formula 1 is of Formula 3-2 when X2 is NAr3, Ar3 is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), d is 1 and R4 is an aryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (biphenyl), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 6, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and ring B of Formula 2 is an unsubstituted aryl ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Formula 2 is of Formula 4 when g is 0 and Ra is not present, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 8, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and L is a direct linkage as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Formula 1 is of Formula 5 when e is 0 and R5 is not present.
With respect to claim 10, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and Ar1 and Ar2 of Formula 1 are the same, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 12, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 9, and Formula 5 is of Formula 6-2 when X2 is NAr3, d is 1 and R4 is biphenyl, e is 0, and n is 0, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 13, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the luminescence device of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 1 is instant compound 14.
With respect to claim 14, Lee discloses compound 611 (page 54 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
258
506
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from chemical formula 1 (page 18 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
332
352
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Lee also teaches that A2 is biphenyl (paragraph 0107, line 3), and that R1 and R2 are phenyl (paragraph 0106, line 3). Examiner notes that Lee is also not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the carbazole moieties to the linking group, L.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic compound which, when applied to an organic light-emitting device as a hole transport material, lowers the driving voltage of the device, improves the luminous efficiency, brightness, thermal stability, color purity, and device lifespan (paragraph 0026), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound 611 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as hole transport materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms comprising nitrogen (carbazole), L is a direct linkage, ring A is an unsubstituted aryl ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), a and b are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, and Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 2.
In Formula 2, Y is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and ring B is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene).
However, Lee does not fairly suggest selection of an o-phenylene linking group at a position analogous to instant ring A.
In analogous art, Chung teaches a compound suitable for use in a hole transport layer (paragraphs 0236-0238) comprising a carbazole moiety and another condensed heterocyclic compound linked through an o-phenylene group (Abstract and Formula 1).
Chung teaches that when the two moieties are linked through an ortho position, the conjugation length of the compound shortens, giving the compound high triplet energy, which may make it suitable for an electronic device (paragraph 0226).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to link the two heterocyclic moieties in the compound of Lee through an o-phenylene group in order to shorten the conjugation length of the compound, giving it high triplet energy, as taught by Chung.
However, neither Lee nor Chung teaches nor fairly suggests selection of ortho-biphenyl substituents at a location analogous to instant Ar1 and Ar2.
In analogous art, Ogasawara teaches an organic electroluminescent device which suppresses crystallization of a material to be used in an organic electroluminescent device (abstract).
Ogasawara teaches that crystallization is effectively reduced by using a compound of Formula (1) (paragraph 0005), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
26
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Ar1 is represented by Formula (2) (paragraph 0012), or more specifically, a group represented by Formula (3) (paragraph 0014), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
158
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, n1 is 0 and R1 is not present (paragraph 0015).
Ogasawara exemplifies this group in carbazole structures such as Compound (1-1) (page 6), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
260
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbazole moieties of the compound of Lee to comprise the o-biphenyl substituent of Ogasawara in order to suppress crystallinity of the compound, as taught by Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 15, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 14, and X of the Formula 1 is of Formula 3-2 when X2 is NAr3, d is 1 and R4 is an aryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (biphenyl), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 16, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 14, and Formula 2 is of Formula 4 when g is 0 and Ra is not present, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 17, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 14, and Formula 1 is of Formula 5 when e is 0 and R5 is not present, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 19, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 17, and Formula 5 is of Formula 6-2 when d is 1 and R4 is biphenyl, e is 0 and R5 is not present, and n is 0 as pictured above.
With respect to claim 20, Lee, Chung, and Ogasawara teach the compound of claim 14, and the compound of Formula 1 is instant compound 14, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786