DETAILED ACTION
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not limited to a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2015-0030511).
Examiner’s Note: The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-2015-0030511 (herein referred to as “Park et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Park et al. discloses a composition as host material comprising the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising “at least one” of the compounds of Chemical Formulae 2-4 for the construction of displays and the like (pages 18-19). Park et al. discloses that “two or more different compounds” of Chemical Formulae 2-4 “are mixed” (page 24); an embodiment is disclosed wherein two different compounds are mixed (the simplest and most easily envisioned being of equal amounts) (page 37). The following compounds are disclosed as embodiments for Chemical Formulae 2-4, respectively:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 26 of Park et al.) (first compound) such that R3-4 = hydrogen, ring A = Applicant’s Chemical Formula I-5 (with R10-12 = hydrogen and X1 = S), L3 = single bond, Z1-3 = N, L1-2 = single bond, and R1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae I, IE, and IE-1,
PNG
media_image2.png
154
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 28 of Park et al.) (second compound) such that R13-14 = hydrogen, ring B = Applicant’s Chemical Formulae II-1 (with R15-18 = hydrogen, L5 = L8 = single bond, and Ar2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl)), L4 = single bond, and Ar1 = substituted C6 aryl group (substituted phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae II, IIA, and IIA-1, and
PNG
media_image3.png
94
138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 29 of Park et al.) (third compound) such that R34-38 = hydrogen, L8 = unsubstituted C6 arylene group (phenylene), R39-41 = hydrogen, and X2 = S of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae IIIB and IIIB-4. However, Park et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein three different compounds are mixed as host material. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to further incorporate 5-4 (of any arbitrary amount during the normal course of experimentation) to a host material composition comprising the explicitly disclosed embodiments 3-2 and 4-2 (which are originally present at equal amounts). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Park et al. which explicitly teaches that additional (and different) host material of any one of Chemical Formulae 2-4 can be further mixed into the composition (“two or more different compounds”), thus rendering the incorporation predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Park et al. further discloses an organic EL device comprising the following layers: substrate (110), anode (120), hole-injecting layer (130), hole-transporting layer (140), buffer layer (141), light-emitting auxiliary layer (151), light-emitting layer (150), electron-transporting layer (160), electron-injecting layer (170), and cathode (180) (Fig. 1); its inventive composition comprise the light-emitting layer (page 10).
Claims 1-3, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 10-2018-0027468) in view of Itai et al. (WO 2012/005361 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-2018-0027468 (herein referred to as “Ahn et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The Office has relied on the national phase publication US 2013/0207540 A1 of WIPO publication WO 2012/005361 A1 (herein referred to as “Itai et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Ahn et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays and the like comprising a light-emitting layer comprising a host that comprises a “plurality of host compounds,” at least one of which corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 and a second host compound which corresponds to Chemical Formula 2 ([0010], [0023]); an embodiment is disclosed wherein the two hosts are mixed at equal weight concentrations ([0242]). The following compounds are disclosed as embodiments for Chemical Formulae 1 and 2, respectively:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
64
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 27 of Ahn et al.) (second compound) such that R13-14 = hydrogen, ring B = Applicant’s Chemical Formula II-1 (with R15-17 = hydrogen, L5 = single bond, and Ar2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl)), L4 = single bond, and Ar1 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae II, IIA, and IIA-1 and
PNG
media_image5.png
68
60
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 31 of Ahn et al.) (first compound) such that Z1-3 = N, R3-4 = hydrogen, ring A = Applicant’s Chemical Formula I-1 (with R5-6 = hydrogen), L1-3 = single bond, and R1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae I, IA, and IA-1. Ahn et al. further that the device comprises a hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, and electron-blocking layer interposed between the light-emitting layer and the anode, as well as an electron buffer layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, and electron-injecting layer interposed between the light-emitting layer and the cathode ([0234]-[0235]). However, Ahn et al. does not explicitly disclose a third compound as recited in the claims.
Itai et al. discloses a light-emitting layer comprising fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant material that is combined with host material ([0228]); the host material includes the following ([0015], [0231]):
PNG
media_image6.png
324
428
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 7) (third compound) such that R34-38 = hydrogen, L8 = unsubstituted C6 arylene group (phenylene), R39 = R41 = hydrogen, and R40 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae IIIB, and IIIB-4. There also exists a compound of Formula (II) in at least one layer between the light-emitting layer and the cathode ([0016]). The use results in a device with high light emission efficiency and low driving voltage ([0011]). It would have been further obvious to incorporate compound 23G as disclosed by Itai et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ahn et al. (as additional host material, which can be easily added in any arbitrary amount during the normal course of experimentation). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Itai et al., which teaches that the use of such compounds as host material (in combination with compounds of Formula (II) in the electron-transporting region) results in a device with high light emission efficiency and low driving voltage.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 10-2018-0027468) in view of Chen et al. (CN 110229071 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-2018-0027468 (herein referred to as “Ahn et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication CN 110229071 A (herein referred to as “Chen et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ahn et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays and the like comprising a light-emitting layer comprising a host that comprises a “plurality of host compounds,” at least one of which corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 and a second host compound which corresponds to Chemical Formula 2 ([0010], [0023]); an embodiment is disclosed wherein the two hosts are mixed at equal weight concentrations ([0242]). The following compounds are disclosed as embodiments for Chemical Formulae 1 and 2, respectively:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
64
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 27 of Ahn et al.) (second compound) such that R13-14 = hydrogen, ring B = Applicant’s Chemical Formula II-1 (with R15-17 = hydrogen, L5 = single bond, and Ar2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl)), L4 = single bond, and Ar1 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae II, IIA, and IIA-1 and
PNG
media_image5.png
68
60
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 31 of Ahn et al.) (first compound) such that Z1-3 = N, R3-4 = hydrogen, ring A = Applicant’s Chemical Formula I-1 (with R5-6 = hydrogen), L1-3 = single bond, and R1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae I, IA, and IA-1. Ahn et al. further that the device comprises a hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, and electron-blocking layer interposed between the light-emitting layer and the anode, as well as an electron buffer layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, and electron-injecting layer interposed between the light-emitting layer and the cathode ([0234]-[0235]). However, Ahn et al. does not explicitly disclose a third compound as recited in the claims.
Chen et al. discloses a light-emitting layer comprising dopant material that is combined with host material ([0177]); the latter includes its inventive fluorene-based compounds such as the following, the use of which results in device efficiency ([0055], [0058]):
PNG
media_image7.png
160
188
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 40) (third compound) such that R22-26 = hydrogen, L7 = single bond, R27 = substituted C6 aryl group (substituted phenyl), and R28-33 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae IIIA and IIIA-4. It would have been further obvious to incorporate compound FP202 as disclosed by Chen et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ahn et al. (as additional host material, which can be easily added in any arbitrary amount during the normal course of experimentation). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Chen et al., which teaches that the use of such compounds as host material results in improved device efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786