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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 16 October 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
The amendment to the specification has overcome the objection to the abstract set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 7 and 14 have overcome the objections to claims 7 and 14 set forth in the last Office action. The objections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 111808085—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection based upon Li have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025 and 20 October 2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 111808085—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li does not teach compound corresponding to the instant X being O. Additionally, Applicant argues that the compounds of the current claims possess unexpected results with respect to the cited prior art.
With respect to the instant X being O, for the reasons described below, this limitation is obvious based on the teachings of Li.
With respect to the proffered results in comparison to Li, there are numerous differences between the tested compounds of the current claims and the cited compound of Li. Due to the number of differences, it cannot be determined that modifying the compound of Li such that the instant X was O would be unpredictable. In other words, it cannot be determined if the other differences between the tested compounds and the cited compound of Li would result in the improved performance data. Additionally, it cannot be determined if all of the differences are required for the improved performance data to be observed. If other differences than the identity of the instant X result in the observed performance data or if all of the differences are required for the observed performance data, then the current claims are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025 and 20 October 2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-10, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (CN 110317195—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Xing”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 10 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (CN 110317195—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Xing”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and Tominaga et al. (JP 2003-133075 – machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tominaga”) set forth in the last Office acton have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections. Additionally, Applicant argues that the compounds of the current claims possess unexpected results with respect to the cited prior art.
While Applicant has removed the recitation that positively states that two or more groups adjacent to each can bond to each other to form a ring, this teaching is still found in the specification. The claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Thus, because the specification teaches that two or more groups adjacent to each can bond to each other to form a ring, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claims is that adjacent groups Rb can be joined to form a ring.
Applicant can positively state that adjacent groups Rb do not for a ring. As this is demonstrated in the exemplified examples, such a recitation would not be new matter.
With respect to the proffered results in comparison to Xing, there are numerous differences between the tested compounds of the current claims and the cited compound of Xing. Due to the number of differences, it cannot be determined that modifying the compound of Xing such that the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic group being bonded at a position consistent with the group of the instant Chemical Formula 1 comprising the instant Y1 through Y5 would be unpredictable. In other words, it cannot be determined if the other differences between the tested compounds and the cited compound of Xing would result in the improved performance data. Additionally, it cannot be determined if all of the differences are required for the improved performance data to be observed. If other differences than the position of the heterocyclic group result in the observed performance data or if all of the differences are required for the observed performance data, then the current claims are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025 and 20 October 2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2011/0266526 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2011/0266526 A1) (hereafter “Ma”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and Tominaga et al. (JP 2003-133075 – machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tominaga”)have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the core structure of Ma is not exemplified as possessing as a substituent an N-containing monocyclic heteroaryl group. Additionally, Applicant argues that the compounds of the current claims possess unexpected results with respect to the cited prior art.
Ma teaches that the additional fused ring on the dibenzofuran structure increase the conjugation, leading to more extended pi-electron delocalization and stabilization of charge in the oxidized or reduced state of the molecule {paragraph [0058]}. This effect would be present regardless of the substitutions on the dibenzofuran structure having an additional fused ring.
The closest comparative compound to the compounds of Sugino is comparative compound C. This compound lacks a carbazolyl group like the compound of Sugino. Therefore, the current results are not a direct comparison to Sugino and the performance of the compound of Sugino in comparison to the claimed compounds cannot be determined. Thus it cannot be determined that the proffered results represent unexpected results with respect to the teachings of Sugino.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 111808085—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-7: Li discloses the compound shown below {(p. 2, lines 16-28), (p. 9)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
688
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li does not disclose a compound similar in structure to the compound shown above except for having an O atom in place of the S atom.
However, Li teaches that the compounds of Li have the structure shown below {p. 2, lines 16-28}.
PNG
media_image2.png
284
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where X can optionally be O in addition to optionally being S {p. 2, lines 19-20}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Li shown above by substituting an O atom in place of the S atom, based on the teaching of Li. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of O would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the options for X of Li), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (CN 110317195—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Xing”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, and 12: Xing discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and one or more organic material layer provided between the first electrode and the second electrode {p. 30, lines 19-49: Embodiment 2-4}.
The organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer, and the light emitting layer comprises the compound shown below as the host material for a light-emitting dopant {(p. 30, lines 19-49: Embodiment 2-4 uses compound A24 as the host material for a light-emitting dopant.), (p. 6, Compound A24)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
1050
1182
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The organic layer further comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transfer layer, an electron injection layer, and an electron transfer layer {p. 30, lines 19-49: Embodiment 2-4}.
Xing does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound A24 shown above except for the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic group being bonded at a position consistent with the group of the instant Chemical Formula 1 comprising the instant Y1 through Y5.
However, Xing teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Xing have the structure of general formula (I) of Xing, shown below {p. 2, final 7 lines through p. 3, first 13 lines}.
PNG
media_image4.png
176
230
media_image4.png
Greyscale
General formula (I) of Xing shows that the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic group can be bonded at any position of the benzene ring to which it’s bonded.
Furthermore, the compound of Xing shown above is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic group of the compound of Xing shown above is bonded at a position consistent with the group of the instant Chemical Formula 1 comprising the instant Y1 through Y5.
With respect to position isomers, 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 of Xing shown above such that the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic group of the compound of Xing shown above is bonded at a position consistent with the group of the instant Chemical Formula 1 comprising the instant Y1 through Y5. A compound in which the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic group of the compound of Xing shown above is bonded at a position consistent with the group of the instant Chemical Formula 1 comprising the instant Y1 through Y5 would represent a position isomer of the compound of Xing shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the compounds having each respective structure would act in similar manner. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claim 4: Xing teaches all of the features with respect to claim 3, as outlined above.
Xing does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound A24 shown above except for the amine group being bonded through a position equivalent to the position of the instant substituent R1 in the instant Chemical Formula 2-6.
However, Xing teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Xing have the structure of general formula (I) of Xing, shown below {p. 2, final 7 lines through p. 3, first 13 lines}.
PNG
media_image4.png
176
230
media_image4.png
Greyscale
General formula (I) of Xing shows that the amine group can be bonded at any position of the benzene ring to which it’s bonded.
Furthermore, the modified compound of Xing shown above is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the amine group is bonded through a position equivalent to the position of the instant substituent R1 in the instant Chemical Formula 2-6.
With respect to position isomers, 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 further modify the compound of Xing shown above such that the amine group is bonded through a position equivalent to the position of the instant substituent R1 in the instant Chemical Formula 2-6. A compound in which the amine group is bonded through a position equivalent to the position of the instant substituent R1 in the instant Chemical Formula 2-6 would represent a position isomer of the compound of Xing shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the compounds having each respective structure would act in similar manner. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Claim(s) 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (CN 110317195—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Xing”) as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and Tominaga et al. (JP 2003-133075 – machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tominaga”).
Regarding claims 10 and 13: Xing teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 10, as described above.
Xing does not exemplify that the light-emitting layer comprises a 2nd host material.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a triazine derivative {paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host, which can be a triazine derivative.}.
The Examiner is equating the host material of Xing—with the second host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
Nishizeki teaches organic electroluminescence devices {paragraphs [0557]-[0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that multiple hosts can be used in a light emitting layer {paragraph [0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device {paragraph [0566]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Iida by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516, and Nishizeki. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516 and Nishizeki.
Xing as modified by Kondakova ‘516 and Nishizeki does not teach that the additional host material that can be a hole transporting host is a compound having the structure of the instant Compound 1-1.
As described above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches one of the host materials can be a hole transporting host and can be a carbazole derivative.
Tominaga teaches an organic electroluminescent device {paragraph [0018]}. The light-emitting comprises the carbazole derivative shown below as a host material {(paragraph [0018]), (p. 6, ¶ [0025]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton can be used as a hole transporting material or as a host material.), (p. 8, ¶ [0034]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton is exemplified by the compounds on pp. 5-6.), (p. 6, structure in upper right), (paragraphs [0020] and [0039]; the luminescent material can be a phosphorescent material, which can be an iridium complex)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Tominaga’s Host Material)]
PNG
media_image5.png
202
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore Tominaga’s host material shown above was a known carbazole derivative host material at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, Tominaga teaches that the host materials of Tominaga provide organic light-emitting devices with high durability, high efficiency, and high color purity {paragraphs [0007] and [0058]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the optoelectric device of Xing as modified by Kondakova ‘516, and Nishizeki by substituting the generalized carbazole derivative hole transport host of Kondakova ‘516 with Tominaga’s host material, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516, Nishizeki, and Tominaga. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a compound known to provide devices having high durability, high efficiency, and high color purity as taught by Tominaga.
Regarding claim 14: Xing as modified by Kondakova ‘516, Nishizeki, and Tominaga teaches all of the features with respect to claim 13, as outlined above
Xing as modified by Kondakova ‘516, Nishizeki, and Tominaga does not teach a specific device in the host material taught by Sugino and the compound of Tominaga have a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1.
However, Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the relative amount of each host can be determined by experimentation {paragraph [0289]}.
As described above, Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device {paragraph [0566]}.
Xing as modified by Kondakova ‘516, Nishizeki, and Tominaga teaches the claimed invention except for that in the host material taught by Xing and the compound of Tominaga have a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1. It should be noted that concentrations of each host material are result effective variables. As described above, Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create a light emitting layer in which in the host material taught by Xing and the compound of Tominaga have a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the transfer of electric charges in order to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2011/0266526 A1) (hereafter “Ma”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, and 12: Sugino discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and one or more organic material layer provided between the first electrode and the second electrode {Table 5 and paragraphs [0401]-[0415]: Organic EL element 504}.
The organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer, and the light emitting layer comprises the compound shown below as the host material for a light-emitting dopant {( Table 5 and paragraphs [0401]-[0415]: Organic EL element 504 uses compound 430 as the host material for a light-emitting dopant.), (p. 76, Compound 430)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The organic layer further comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transfer layer, an electron injection layer, and an electron transfer layer {Table 5 and paragraphs [0401]-[0415]: Organic EL element 504}.
Sugino does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound 430 of Sugino shown above except for there being a fused benzene ring on the benzene ring of the dibenzofuran to which the carbazole group is bonded.
Ma teaches host materials for organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0019]-[0025], [0034], [0062]-[0068] and [0077]} comprising benzofuran moieties with additional fused rings, such as the structure shown below {paragraphs [0025] and [0068]}.
PNG
media_image7.png
274
418
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ma teaches that the additional fused ring on the dibenzofuran structure increase the conjugation, leading to more extended pi-electron delocalization and stabilization of charge in the oxidized or reduced state of the molecule {paragraph [0058]}.
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 of Sugino shown above by adding a fused benzene ring on the benzene ring of the dibenzofuran to which the carbazole group is bonded to form the structure of Ma shown above. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the conjugation, leading to more extended pi-electron delocalization and stabilization of charge in the oxidized or reduced state of the molecule, as taught by Ma.
Regarding claim 4: Sugino as modified by Ma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 3, as outlined above.
Sugino does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound 430 of Sugino shown above except for the carbazolyl group being bonded through a position equivalent to the position of the instant substituent R1 in the instant Chemical Formula 2-6.
However, Sugino teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Sugino can have the structure the structural formula shown below {paragraph [0014]}.
PNG
media_image8.png
636
928
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The structural formula of Sugino shown above shows that the carbazolyl group can be bonded at any position of the benzene ring to which it’s bonded.
Furthermore, the modified compound of Sugino shown above is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the carbazolyl group is bonded through a position equivalent to the position of the instant substituent R1 in the instant Chemical Formula 2-6.
With respect to position isomers, 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 further modify the compound of Sugino shown above such that the carbazolyl group is bonded through a position equivalent to the position of the instant substituent R1 in the instant Chemical Formula 2-6. A compound in which the carbazolyl group is bonded through a position equivalent to the position of the instant substituent R1 in the instant Chemical Formula 2-6 would represent a position isomer of the modified compound of Sugino. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the compounds having each respective structure would act in similar manner. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claim 7: Sugino as modified by Ma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Sugino does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound 430 of Sugino except for having a para-phenylene linking group bonding the carbazolyl group to the dibenzofuran containing moiety. In other words, Sugino as modified by Ma does not exemplify a compound of the current claim 7.
However, the modified compound of Sugino is similar in structure to the instant compound 252 of the current claim 7. The difference being the lack of a para-phenylene group linking the carbazolyl group to the dibenzofuran containing moiety.
Sugino teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Sugino can have the structure the structural formula shown below {paragraph [0014]}.
PNG
media_image8.png
636
928
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Where the linking group L1 can be para-phenylene—as exemplified by Compound 434 of Sugino {p. 77}—in addition to optionally being a single bond {paragraphs [0023]-[0026]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Sugino by using a para-phenylene linking group to connect the carbazolyl group to the dibenzofuran containing moiety, based on the teaching of Sugino. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of para-phenylene would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups L1 of Sugino), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 11: Sugino as modified by Ma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above.
Sugino does not exemplify that the light-emitting layer comprises a 2nd host material.
However, Sugino describes that additional host materials can be used {paragraphs [0062], [0088], and [0215]}.
Sugino teaches that the additional host materials can allow for adjustment of carrier balance and charge transfer {paragraphs [0088] and [0215]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Sugino by using multiple host materials in the light-emitting layer, based on the teaching of Sugino. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for the adjustment of carrier balance and charge transfer, as taught by Sugino.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546 A1) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Ma et al. (US 2011/0266526 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and Tominaga et al. (JP 2003-133075 – machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tominaga”).
Regarding claim 13: Sugino as modified by Ma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as described above.
Sugino does not exemplify that the light-emitting layer comprises a 2nd host material.
However, Sugino describes that additional host materials can be used {paragraphs [0062], [0088], and [0215]}.
Sugino teaches that the additional host materials can allow for adjustment of carrier balance and charge transfer {paragraphs [0088] and [0215]}.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a triazine derivative {paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host, which can be a triazine derivative.}.
The Examiner is equating the host material of Sugino—with the second host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
Nishizeki teaches organic electroluminescence devices {paragraphs [0557]-[0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that multiple hosts can be used in a light emitting layer {paragraph [0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device {paragraph [0566]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Iida by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Sugino, Kondakova ‘516, and Nishizeki. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Sugino, Kondakova ‘516 and Nishizeki.
Sugino as modified by Ma, Kondakova ‘516 and Nishizeki does not teach that the additional host material that can be a hole transporting host is a compound having the structure of the instant Formula (6).
As described above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches one of the host materials can be a hole transporting host and can be a carbazole derivative.
Tominaga teaches an organic electroluminescent device {paragraph [0018]}. The light-emitting comprises the carbazole derivative shown below as a host material {(paragraph [0018]), (p. 6, ¶ [0025]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton can be used as a hole transporting material or as a host material.), (p. 8, ¶ [0034]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton is exemplified by the compounds on pp. 5-6.), (p. 6, structure in upper right), (paragraphs [0020] and [0039]; the luminescent material can be a phosphorescent material, which can be an iridium complex)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Tominaga’s Host Material)]
PNG
media_image5.png
202
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore Tominaga’s host material shown above was a known carbazole derivative host material at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, Tominaga teaches that the host materials of Tominaga provide organic light-emitting devices with high durability, high efficiency, and high color purity {paragraphs [0007] and [0058]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the optoelectric device of Sugiono as modified by Ma, Kondakova ‘516, and Nishizeki by substituting the generalized carbazole derivative hole transport host of Kondakova ‘516 with Tominaga’s host material, based on the teaching of Sugino, Kondakova ‘516, Nishizeki, and Tominaga. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a compound known to provide devices having high durability, high efficiency, and high color purity as taught by Tominaga.
Regarding claim 14: Sugino as modified by Ma, Kondakova ‘516, Nishizeki, and Tominaga teaches all of the features with respect to claim 13, as outlined above
Sugino as modified by Ma, Kondakova ‘516, Nishizeki, and Tominaga does not teach a specific device in the host material taught by Sugino and the compound of Tominaga have a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1.
However, Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the relative amount of each host can be determined by experimentation {paragraph [0289]}.
As described above, Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device {paragraph [0566]}.
Sugino as modified by Ma, Kondakova ‘516, Nishizeki, and Tominaga teaches the claimed invention except for that in the host material taught by Sugino and the compound of Tominaga have a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1. It should be noted that concentrations of each host material are result effective variables. As described above, Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create a light emitting layer in which in the host material taught by Sugino and the compound of Tominaga have a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the transfer of electric charges in order to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786