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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on March 24, 2020 and February 25, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on August 25, 2022.
Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 25, 2022, December 4, 2024, and May 23, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objection
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites that the organic layer comprises one or more “selected among.” It is believed that the word “from” is missing and that the intended wording is “selected from among.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the light efficiency improving layer” in lines 1 - 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 10 is dependent on claim 7, which does not recite a “light efficiency improving layer.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szafranowska (WO2019101594A1, using US20200358002A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 1 and 5 Szafranowska teaches:
An organic light emitting compound represented by Chemical Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
222
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Szafranowska teaches compounds including
PNG
media_image2.png
282
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on page 45. This compound reads on the claimed formula wherein R is a substituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms, wherein the substituents are a combination of a heteroaryl group, an aryl group and an alkyl group; R1 to R4 are an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szafranowska (WO2019101594A1, using US20200358002A1 as the official English language translation) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above.
As per claims 7 and 8, Szafranowska teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer having one or more layers disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises one or more selected among a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a layer which simultaneously injects and transports holes, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a layer which simultaneously transports and injects electrons, an electron blocking layer, a hole blocking layer and a light emitting layer ([0281]: “For example, when the optoelectronic device is an OLED, it may exhibit the following layer structure: 1. Substrate 2. Anode layer A 3. Hole injection layer HIL 4. Hole transport layer HTL 5. Electron blocking layer EBL 6. Emitting layer, EML 7. Hole blocking layer, HBL 8. Electron transport layer ETL 9. Electron injection layer, EIL 10. Cathode layer.”)
Wherein one or more of the layers comprise the organic light emitting compound ([0249]: “In the case of the use, the fraction of the organic molecule according to the invention in the emission layer in an optoelectronic device, more particularly in OLEDs, is 1% to 99% by weight, more particularly 5% to 80% by weight.”)
Szafranowska teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Szafranowska as Szafranowska demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (WO2020262884A1, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 2, and 5, Han teaches:
An organic light emitting compound represented by Chemical Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
222
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Han teaches compound of Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
112
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([77]). A particular compound taught by Han is compound 13
PNG
media_image4.png
120
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which is missing the R group in the claimed Formula. However, Han teaches compounds such as compound 14
PNG
media_image5.png
122
110
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, where the aryl group on the carbazole nitrogen is substituted with a phenyl group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly substitute compound 13 with a phenyl group in one of the five available bonding spots and arrive at the claimed compound. When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed formula wherein R is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms; R1 to R4 are all an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms. As the R groups are all unsubstituted, Han reads on claim 5 as well.)
Han includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Han being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 results of high efficiency, long life and low driving voltage (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 7 and 8, Han teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer having one or more layers disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises one or more selected among a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a layer which simultaneously injects and transports holes, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a layer which simultaneously transports and injects electrons, an electron blocking layer, a hole blocking layer and a light emitting layer ([Claim 1]: “It has a structure in which an anode; a hole transport region; a light-emitting layer; an electron transport region and a cathode are sequentially laminated. The above hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and a hole transport auxiliary layer, further comprising at least one organic functional layer disposed between the hole transport auxiliary layer and the light emitting layer,”)
Wherein one or more of the layers comprise the organic light emitting compound ([76]: “In one embodiment according to the present invention, the hole transport auxiliary layer 33 may include a compound represented by Formula 1 below.”)
Han teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Han as Han demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (WO2020262884A1, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Choi (US20230312538A1).
As per claims 3, 4, and 6, the modified compound of Han above reads on Chemical Formula I-1
PNG
media_image6.png
268
338
media_image6.png
Greyscale
except that the compound does not contain the R5 – R8 substituents as required by claim 3. However, in the definition for Formula 1, Han teaches that the substituents may include deuterium ([80]). Furthermore, Choi teaches that compounds substituted with deuterium have high stability, which results in long lifetime and high efficiency ([0228]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deuterium substituents on the compound of Han, motivated by the desire to predictably provide a compound with long lifetime and high efficiency as taught by Choi ([0228]). When deuterium is added to the compound, the compound reads on the claims wherein R5 to R8 are deuterium, as required by claims 3 and 4, and the resulting compound is the same as compound 1-76 in claim 6
PNG
media_image7.png
140
178
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (WO2020262884A1, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Kim (US20210359219A1).
As per claims 9 and 10, Han teaches that the OLED may comprise a capping layer above the cathode ([144]). Han does not teach:
The capping layer comprising the compound represented by the compound of Formula 1
Kim teaches carbazole-based compounds ([0007]), which are structurally similar to the compounds of Han. Kim teaches that these compounds are suitable for use in the hole transport region ([0260]), which is the same layer that the compounds of Han are used in. Kim also teaches that these compounds may be used in a capping layer located outside the pair of electrodes ([0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Han in the capping layer as claimed, because Kim teaches that carbazole-based compounds that are suitable for use in hole transport layers are also predictably suitable in capping layers ([0059]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR20140145672A teaches carbazole compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789