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 .
Summary of Claims
Claim 1 is amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 12/23/2025. Claims 1-26 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 1 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 12/23/2025.
The rejection of claim 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/23/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 12-15, 17, 19-24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/23/2025. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 5 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Jatsch (US 2018/0222872 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/23/2025. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Noh (US 2019/0372013 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/23/2025. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fennimore (US 2017/0200893 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/23/2025. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim (US 2014/0014927 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/23/2025. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-16 of the reply dated 12/23/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-26 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues the Declaration filed 12/23/2025 provides evidence of unexpected results by comparing compound ET-1 (a compound of the instant invention) with ET-Ref-a (comparative compound). Applicant argues compound ET-1 provides significantly higher LT95 than ET-Ref-a by comprising the carbazole group in the ortho position. Applicant points to Table A and B for support.
ET-1:
PNG
media_image1.png
131
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ET-Ref-a:
PNG
media_image2.png
128
188
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant recites Table A compares results for LT95 evaluation in an EL device tested in configuration (a) (see remarks page 14). From the data in Table A, a device comprising ET-1 obtains about 19% improvement in LT95 compared to ET-Ref-a.
PNG
media_image3.png
163
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant recites Table B compares results for LT95 evaluation in an EL device tested in configuration (a) (see remarks page 15 and paragraph 12 of the Declaration). From the data in Table B, a device comprising ET-1 obtains about 19% improvement in LT95 compared to ET-Ref-a.
PNG
media_image4.png
168
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Applicant further recites on page 16 of the reply and paragraph 15 of the Declaration that Tables A and B report data in different device configurations, and specifically Table B recites data for device configuration (b).
Examiner's response –As the Declaration filed 12/23/2025 recites that the devices of Table B have configuration (a) (in paragraph 12) and configuration (b) (in paragraph 15), it is unclear which configuration the devices of Table B have.
Given that the devices of Table A have configuration (a), if the devices of Table B also have configuration (a), it is unclear why the variation between the data of Table A and Table B are so different. For example, the LT95 variation between inventive Example 1 and inventive Example 7 is 46%. If the variability between inventive devices of the same construction is 46%, then it is unclear whether an improvement of about 19% between inventive devices and comparative devices is truly unexpected.
However, it should be noted that even if the data of the Declaration filed 12/23/2025 show unexpected results over the prior art reference Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1), a new rejection is made below over prior art reference Kim (English translation of WO 2021261962 A1 obtained from Global Dossier). Kim anticipates a compound represented by the claimed formula (1) wherein the carbazole group in the ortho position. Accordingly, the data of the Declaration does not show unexpected results over Kim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 12-15, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (English translation of WO 2021261962 A1 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-8, 12-15, 17, and 19-21, Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device having improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan by including an emission layer comprising a host including a compound represented by Formula 1 and a compound represented by Formula 2 (¶ [13]-[19]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include the compound below on page 16.
Kim’s compound is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed formula (1).
Kim’s compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
186
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
formula (1):
PNG
media_image6.png
380
412
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim’s compound reads on the claimed formula (1) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group including 6 carbon ring atoms;
L1 and L2 are each a single bond (claims 4 and 15);
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom (claim 6);
R11 to R17 are each hydrogen (claims 7-8 and 17); and
R21 to R28 are each hydrogen (claims 7, 12-14, and 17).
Additionally, as no substituents or substituents R are required to be present, the limitations of claims 19-20 are met.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 9, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English translation of WO 2021261962 A1 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the compound on page 16 as described above with respect to claim 1.
The compound fails to read on the claimed formula (1A). However, in Formula 1, Ar1 may be a substituted or unsubstituted C6-60 aryl, wherein examples thereof include phenyl (as shown in the compound on page 16) and biphenyl (as shown in the compound below on page 15) (¶ [22]).
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
199
184
media_image7.png
Greyscale
compound on pg. 15:
PNG
media_image8.png
61
79
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute phenyl with biphenyl
PNG
media_image8.png
61
79
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in the location of Ar1 (as shown in the compound on pg. 15 above), because Kim teaches the Ar1 may suitably be selected as biphenyl. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host compound in the emitting layer of the device of Kim and possess the benefits taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified compound reads on the claimed formula (1A) wherein R3A bonds with L1 in the formula (1) and R1A, R2A, and R4A to R8A are each hydrogen.
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 9, Kim teaches the modified compound on page 16 as described above with respect to claim 2.
The modified compound fails to read on the claimed formula (1A) wherein R1A represents the bond which bonds with L1 in formula (1).
Given the general formula and teachings of Kim, 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 the modified compound wherein the biphenyl group is attached to the triazine ring such that it reads on the claimed formula (1-1) wherein R1A represents the bond which bonds with L1 in formula (1). One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Kim’s Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host in the emission layer of the device of Kim and possess the properties taught by Kim. 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.
The resulting modified compound reads on the claimed formulas (1-1) and (1-11) (claims 5 and 9).
Regarding claims 22 and 26, Kim teaches the compound on page 16 for use in an organic light-emitting device, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim fails to teach a specific example of a device including the compound on page 16. However, Kim does teach an example of the organic light emitting device includes a positive electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a negative electrode, wherein the light emitting layer includes a compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [14]-[16] and [33]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound on page 16 in the device of Kim as described above, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan, as taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 26, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is organic electroluminescence device of claim 22. Claim 26 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or compound. Kim teaches the organic electroluminescence device according to claim 22, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Kim according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Claims 5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English translation of WO 2021261962 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jatsch (US 2018/0222872 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 10-11, Kim teaches the compound on page 16 for use in an organic light-emitting device, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim’s compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
186
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
199
184
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim’s compound fails to include a fluorenyl group in the location of the claimed Ar1. However, in Formula 1, Kim teaches Ar1 may be a substituted or unsubstituted C6-60 aryl, wherein examples thereof include phenyl (as shown in the compound on page 16) and fluorenyl
PNG
media_image9.png
38
64
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(¶ [22]and [61]-[63]).
Jatsch teaches fluorene derivatives that are connected to a carbon atom of a diaryl substituted triazinyl derivative, wherein the fluorene derivatives are suitable as matrix materials or materials in the hole-blocking or electron-transport layer in an organic electroluminescent device (abstract). The fluorene derivatives are represented by formula (I) and provide a device with improved lifetime and/or operative voltage (¶ [0013]-[0015]). Examples of fluorene derivatives represented by formula (I) include compound 88 (pg. 28).
Formula (I):
PNG
media_image10.png
273
323
media_image10.png
Greyscale
88:
PNG
media_image11.png
50
64
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Kim’s compound, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute phenyl with fluorene
PNG
media_image11.png
50
64
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in the location of Ar1, as shown in Jatsch’s compound 88, to arrive at a compound represented by Jatsch’s Formula (I), based on the teaching of Jatsch. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved lifetime and/or operative voltage, as taught by Jatsch.
The modified compound reads on Jatsch’s Formula (I) wherein: a, c, and d are each 0 and b is 1; Z1 and Z2 are each a straight-chain alkyl having 1 C atom; e and f are each 0 and thus Y1 and Y2 are not required to be present; n is 0 and thus L is not required to be present; Ar1 is an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms substituted with a radical R1, and Ar2 is a heteroaromatic ring system having 13 aromatic ring atoms; and R1 a heteroaromatic ring system having 12 carbon atoms (¶ [0015]-[0025]). Accordingly, the modified compound is expected to obtain the benefits of Jatsch.
The modified compound of Kim in view of Jatsch is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image12.png
286
404
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The modified compound reads on: the claimed formula (1-1) wherein R31 to R33 and R36 to R39 are each hydrogen, and R34 and R35 combine to form a substituted unsaturated ring (claim 5); and the claimed formula (1-12) wherein R41 and R42 are each a substituent R that is an unsubstituted alkyl group including 1 carbon atom (claims 10-11).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English translation of WO 2021261962 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noh (US 2019/0372013 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the compound on page 16 for use in an organic light-emitting device, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim’s compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
186
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
199
184
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim’s compound fails to read on the claimed formula (1) wherein L2 is an arylene group. However, Kim teaches L3 of Formula 1 may be a C6-C60 arylene group such as a phenylene group (as shown in Kim’s compound) or a biphenylene (¶ [23] and [96]).
Noh teaches an OLED having improved emission efficiency by including a space-through charge transfer compound represented by Formula 1, wherein A is selected from Formula 2 and D is selected from Formula 3 (¶ [0018] and [0021]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound 1 (pg. 4).
Formula 1 :
PNG
media_image13.png
120
114
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image14.png
102
47
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Formula 3:
PNG
media_image15.png
64
95
media_image15.png
Greyscale
compound 1:
PNG
media_image16.png
217
228
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Kim’s compound reads on Noh’s Formula 1 except wherein it comprises a phenylene rather than a biphenylene between the carbazole and the triazine groups.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phenylene group with a biphenylene group in the location of L3, as shown in Noh’s compound 1, to arrive at a compound represented by Noh’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Noh. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved emission efficiency, as taught by Noh.
The modified compound of Kim in view of Noh reads on Noh’s Formula 1 wherein: A is represented by
PNG
media_image14.png
102
47
media_image14.png
Greyscale
; D is represented by
PNG
media_image15.png
64
95
media_image15.png
Greyscale
; R1 and R2 are each a C6 or C12 aryl group; and R5 and R6 are each hydrogen (see Noh, ¶ [0037]-[0042]). Accordingly, the modified compound of Kim in view of Noh is expected to obtain the benefits of Noh.
Thus, the modified compound reads on the limitation wherein L2 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 carbon ring atoms.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English translation of WO 2021261962 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fennimore (US 2017/0200893 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the compound on page 16 for use in an organic light-emitting device, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim’s compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
186
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
199
184
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim’s compound fails to include at least one deuterium. However, Kim teaches R1 and R2 may be selected as deuterium and substituents of Formula 1 include deuterium (¶ [24]-[25] and [28]).
Fennimore teaches deuterated materials (wherein at least one H has been replaced by deuterium) can be less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, excitons, or a combination thereof, and can lead to improved device lifetime (¶ [0097]-[0098]). Additionally, deuterated compounds may result in greater processing tolerance for both the preparation and purification of the materials and in the formation of electronic devices using the materials (¶ [0098]).
Therefore, in Kim’s compound, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute at least one hydrogen with deuterium, as taught by Fennimore. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the compound less susceptible to degradation, improve the device lifetime, and provide greater processing tolerance of the compounds, as taught by Fennimore.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English translation of WO 2021261962 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1).
Regarding claims 23-24, Kim teaches the organic light-emitting device comprising the compound on page 16, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, as described above with respect to claim 22.
Kim’s compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
186
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kim fails to teach the compound may be used in an electron-transporting zone.
Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device including a condensed-cyclic compound represented by Formula 1A, wherein the condensed-cyclic compound may be included in the electron-transport region and the electron-transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer (¶ [0187], [0251], and [0333]). The condensed-cyclic compound has excellent charge-transporting ability and thermal stability and provides the device with improved emission efficiency, driving voltage, and lifespan (¶ [0178]-[0179] and [0366]).
Kim’s compound reads on Lee’s Formula 1A wherein: ring A1 is represented by Formula 1D; X1 to X3 are each N; X4 is S; L4 is not required to be present; L21 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene group; a4 is 0 and a21 is 1; R5, R6, and R17 are each hydrogen; and b5 is 3, and n6 and b17 are each 4 (see Lee, ¶ [0008]-[0021]). Accordingly, Kim’s compound is suitable for use in an electron-transport layer and an electron injection layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kim’s compound in the hole blocking layer, the electron transport layer, or the electron injection layer of Kim’s device, because it would have been using a compound with excellent charge-transporting ability and thermal stability which provides a device with improved emission efficiency, driving voltage, and lifespan, as taught by Lee, and because Lee teaches such a compound is suitable for use in an electron-transport layer and an electron injection layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected Kim’s compound and the hole blocking layer, electron transport layer, or electron injection layer to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
With respect to claim 24, while Kim in view of Lee fail to specifically teach Kim’s compound is provided in the electron transport layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically include Kim’s compound in the electron transport layer, because it would have been choosing from one of three layers in which to include Kim’s compound, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim and Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Kim’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Kim and Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (English translation of WO 2021261962 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kim ‘927 (US 2014/0014927 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Kim in view of Lee teach the organic light-emitting device including Kim’s compound in the electron transport layer, as described above with respect to claim 24.
Kim’s compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
186
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kim fails to teach the electron transport layer further includes an alkali metal compound.
Kim ‘927 teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an electron transport layer including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an alkali metal complex (abstract). Such a device has high efficiency and long life-span characteristics (¶ [0007]-[0008]).
Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image17.png
127
150
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Kim’s compound reads the Chemical Formula 1 of Kim ‘927 wherein: X is nitrogen; L1 and L3 are each a single bond, and L2 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene group; R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group, and R3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (see Kim ‘927, ¶ [0008]-[0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide an alkali metal complex in the electron transport layer, based on the teaching of Kim ‘927. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having high efficiency and long life-span characteristics, as taught by Kim ‘927.
Claims 1-9, 12-15, 17, 19-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12-15, 17, 19-22, and 26, Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer between the first and second electrode, wherein a condensed-cyclic compound represented by Formula 1A is provided as a material in the organic layer, wherein the compound has excellent charge-transporting ability and thermal stability and provides the device with improved emission efficiency, driving voltage, and lifespan (abstract; ¶ [0042]-[0046], [0179], and [0181]). In particular, the organic layer includes a hole transport region, an emissive layer, and an electron transport region, wherein the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer, and the electron transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer (¶ [0199], [0202], [0251], and [0333]).
Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1A include compound 659 (pg. 117).
1A:
PNG
media_image18.png
152
358
media_image18.png
Greyscale
659:
PNG
media_image19.png
167
318
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Compound 659 fails to read on the claimed formula (1) as the carbazole is in the meta-position rather than the ortho-position. However, Lee teaches L21 may be represented by Formula 2-2 (as shown in compound 659) or Formula 2-34, among others, and thus the carbazole group may be attached in either the meta- or ortho-position (¶ [0084]).
2-2:
PNG
media_image20.png
67
106
media_image20.png
Greyscale
2-34:
PNG
media_image21.png
97
81
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 substitute Formula 2-2 with Formula 2-34 in the location of L21, because Lee teaches L21 may suitably be selected as Formula 2-34. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the organic light-emitting device of Lee and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Formula 2-34, because it would have been choosing from a list of groups taught by Lee as suitable for L21, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the condensed-cyclic compound represented by Formula 1A in the organic light-emitting device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1A having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound 659 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed formula (1).
modified 659:
PNG
media_image22.png
288
449
media_image22.png
Greyscale
formula (1):
PNG
media_image6.png
380
412
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 659 reads on the claimed formula (1) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group including 12 carbon ring atoms;
Ar1 is further represented by the claimed formula (1A) wherein R2A bonds with L1 in formula (1), and R1A and R3A to R10A are each hydrogen (claim 2);
L1 and L2 are each a single bond (claims 4 and 15);
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom (claim 6);
R11 to R17 are each hydrogen (claims 7-8 and 17); and
R21 to R28 are each hydrogen (claims 7, 12-14, and 17).
Additionally, as no substituents or substituents R are required to be present, the limitations of claims 19-20 are met.
Regarding claim 26, although the instant claim is drawn to an electronic apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is organic electroluminescence device of claim 22. Claim 26 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or compound. Lee teaches the organic light emitting device according to claim 22, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an electronic apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Lee according to claim 22 may be considered an electronic apparatus.
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 9, Lee teaches the modified compound 659 as described above with respect to claims 1-2.
modified 659:
PNG
media_image22.png
288
449
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 659 fails to include the biphenyl group attached in the ortho-position instead of the meta-position. However, Lee teaches L4 of formula 1A may be represented by Formula 2-2 (as shown in compound 659) or Formula 2-34, among others (¶ [0084]). Thus, the biphenyl group may be attached in either the meta- or ortho-position
1A:
PNG
media_image18.png
152
358
media_image18.png
Greyscale
2-2:
PNG
media_image20.png
67
106
media_image20.png
Greyscale
2-34:
PNG
media_image21.png
97
81
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 substitute Formula 2-2 with Formula 2-34 in the location of L4, because Lee teaches L4 may suitably be selected as Formula 2-34. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the organic light-emitting device of Lee and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Formula 2-34, because it would have been choosing from a list of groups taught by Lee as suitable for L4, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the condensed-cyclic compound represented by Formula 1A in the organic light-emitting device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1A having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound 659 reads on the claimed formula (1A) wherein R1A bonds with L1 in formula (1) and R2A to R10A are each hydrogen (claim 3); the claimed formula (1-1) wherein R31 to R39 are each hydrogen (claim 5); and the claimed formula (1-11) (claim 9).
Regarding claims 23-24, Lee teaches the organic light-emitting device including the modified compound 659, as described above with respect to claim 22.
Lee fails to teach a device wherein the modified compound 659 is provided in the electron transport region. However, Lee does teach the condensed-cyclic compound may be included in the electron-transport region and the electron-transport region includes a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer (¶ [0187], [0251], and [0333]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified compound 659 in the electron-transport region, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the modified compound 659 and the electron transport region to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
With respect to claim 24, while Lee fails to specifically teach the modified compound 659 is provided in the electron transport layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically include the modified compound 659 in the electron transport layer, because it would have been choosing from one of three layers in the electron-transport region in which to include the modified compound 659, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Lee’s Formula 1A having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Claims 5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jatsch (US 2018/0222872 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 10-11, Lee teaches the modified compound 659 as described above with respect to claims 1-2.
modified 659:
PNG
media_image22.png
288
449
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 659 fails to include a fluorenyl group in the location of the claimed Ar1. However, Lee teaches in Formula 1A a4 may be 0 and thus L4 is not required to be present, and R4 of formula 1A may be represented by Formula 4-2 (as shown in compound 659) or Formula 4-29, among others, wherein Y31 may be C(Z33)(Z34) and Z33 and Z34 may be a C1-C20 alkyl group (¶ [0018] and [0131]-[0134]).
1A:
PNG
media_image18.png
152
358
media_image18.png
Greyscale
4-1:
PNG
media_image23.png
64
94
media_image23.png
Greyscale
4-29:
PNG
media_image24.png
98
156
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Jatsch teaches fluorene derivatives that are connected to a carbon atom of a diaryl substituted triazinyl derivative, wherein the fluorene derivatives are suitable as matrix materials or materials in the hole-blocking or electron-transport layer in an organic electroluminescent device (abstract). The fluorene derivatives are represented by formula (I) and provide a device with improved lifetime and/or operative voltage (¶ [0013]-[0015]). Examples of fluorene derivatives represented by formula (I) include compound 88 (pg. 28).
Formula (I):
PNG
media_image10.png
273
323
media_image10.png
Greyscale
88:
PNG
media_image11.png
50
64
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in the modified compound 659, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 1 with 0 in the location of a4, and substitute Formula 4-2 with Formula 4-29 in the location of R4 wherein Y31 is C(Z33)(Z34) and Z33 and Z34 are each a C1 alkyl group, and thereby arrive at a fluorene group
PNG
media_image11.png
50
64
media_image11.png
Greyscale
as shown in Jatsch’s compound 88, to arrive at a compound represented by Jatsch’s Formula (I), based on the teaching of Jatsch. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved lifetime and/or operative voltage, as taught by Jatsch.
The modified compound 659 reads on Jatsch’s Formula (I) wherein: a, c, and d are each 0 and b is 1; Z1 and Z2 are each a straight-chain alkyl having 1 C atom; e and f are each 0 and thus Y1 and Y2 are not required to be present; n is 0 and thus L is not required to be present; Ar1 is an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms substituted with a radical R1, and Ar2 is a heteroaromatic ring system having 13 aromatic ring atoms; and R1 a heteroaromatic ring system having 12 carbon atoms (¶ [0015]-[0025]). Accordingly, the modified compound 659 is expected to obtain the benefits of Jatsch.
The modified compound 659 of Lee in view of Jatsch is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image12.png
286
404
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The modified compound reads on: the claimed formula (1-1) wherein R31 to R33 and R36 to R39 are each hydrogen, and R34 and R35 combine to form a substituted unsaturated ring (claim 5); and the claimed formula (1-12) wherein R41 and R42 are each a substituent R that is an unsubstituted alkyl group including 1 carbon atom (claims 10-11).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noh (US 2019/0372013 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the modified compound 659 as described above with respect to claims 1-2.
modified 659:
PNG
media_image22.png
288
449
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 659 fails to read on the claimed formula (1) wherein L2 is an arylene group. However, Lee teaches L21 of Formula 1A may be a C6-C60 arylene group such as a phenylene group (as shown in the modified compound 659) or a biphenyl group (¶ [0017] and [0100]).
1A:
PNG
media_image18.png
152
358
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Noh teaches an OLED having improved emission efficiency by including a space-through charge transfer compound represented by Formula 1, wherein A is selected from Formula 2 and D is selected from Formula 3 (¶ [0018] and [0021]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound 1 (pg. 4).
Formula 1 :
PNG
media_image13.png
120
114
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image14.png
102
47
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Formula 3:
PNG
media_image15.png
64
95
media_image15.png
Greyscale
compound 1:
PNG
media_image16.png
217
228
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 659 of Lee reads on Noh’s Formula 1 except wherein it comprises a phenylene rather than a biphenylene between the carbazole and the triazine groups.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phenylene group with a biphenylene group in the location of L21, as shown in Noh’s compound 1, to arrive at a compound represented by Noh’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Noh. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved emission efficiency, as taught by Noh.
The modified compound of Lee in view of Noh reads on Noh’s Formula 1 wherein: A is represented by
PNG
media_image14.png
102
47
media_image14.png
Greyscale
; D is represented by
PNG
media_image15.png
64
95
media_image15.png
Greyscale
; R1 and R2 are each a C12 aryl group; and R5 and R6 are each hydrogen (see Noh, ¶ [0037]-[0042]). Accordingly, the modified compound of Lee in view of Noh is expected to obtain the benefits of Noh.
Thus, the modified compound reads on the limitation wherein L2 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 carbon ring atoms.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fennimore (US 2017/0200893 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches the modified compound 659 as described above with respect to claims 1-2.
modified 659:
PNG
media_image22.png
288
449
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 659 fails to include at least one deuterium. However, Lee teaches in Formula 1A R1 to R3, R5, R6, and R11 to R17 may be selected as deuterium, and substituents of the compound represented by Formula 1A may include deuterium (¶ [0019] and [0023]).
1A:
PNG
media_image18.png
152
358
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Fennimore teaches deuterated materials (wherein at least one H has been replaced by deuterium) can be less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, excitons, or a combination thereof, and can lead to improved device lifetime (¶ [0097]-[0098]). Additionally, deuterated compounds may result in greater processing tolerance for both the preparation and purification of the materials and in the formation of electronic devices using the materials (¶ [0098]).
Therefore, in the modified compound 659, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute at least one hydrogen with deuterium, as taught by Fennimore. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the compound less susceptible to degradation, improve the device lifetime, and provide greater processing tolerance of the compounds, as taught by Fennimore.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0074451 A1) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kim ‘927 (US 2014/0014927 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Lee teaches the organic light-emitting device including the modified compound 659 in the electron transport layer, as described above with respect to claim 24.
modified 659:
PNG
media_image22.png
288
449
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to teach the electron transport layer further includes an alkali metal compound. However, Lee does teach the electron transport layer may include a metal-containing material (¶ [0258]).
Kim ‘927 teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an electron transport layer including a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an alkali metal complex (abstract). Such a device has high efficiency and long life-span characteristics (¶ [0007]-[0008]).
Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image17.png
127
150
media_image17.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 659 reads on Chemical Formula 1 of Kim ‘927 wherein: X is nitrogen; L1 and L2 are each an unsubstituted C6 arylene group and L3 is a single bond; R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, and R2 and R3 are each an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group (see Kim ‘927, ¶ [0008]-[0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide an alkali metal complex in the electron transport layer, based on the teaching of Kim ‘927. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having high efficiency and long life-span characteristics, as taught by Kim ‘927.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786