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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, Applicant recites “an organic molecule according to claim 1”. It should be “the organic molecule according to claim 1”.
In claim 13, Applicant recites “an organic molecule according to claim 1”. It should be “the organic molecule according to claim 1”.
In claim 15, Applicant recites “an organic molecule according to claim 1”. It should be “the organic molecule according to claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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.
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 1-3, 6-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1, hereafter Song) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0393419 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, and 12-15, Song discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer containing a first anthracene host, a second deuterated anthracene host, and a first blue dopant ([0010]), wherein the blue dopant can be represented by Formula 5-1 ([0080]-[0081]). Song exemplifies Dopant 7 as the Formula 5-1 ([0083]).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The compound Dopant 7 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula I except that the p-tolyl groups (i.e. the parts enclosed by dashed circles in the figure above) are required to be 2,4,6-mesityl (hereafter mesityl) group; however, Song does teach that R11, R12 and R14 of the Formula 5-1 can be a C6-C30 aryl group ([0081]).
A p-tolyl group and a mesityl group are used as bulky substituents in B,N-containing polycyclic compounds as taught by Hatakeyama ([0136]). Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]). Mesityl is bulkier than p-tolyl such that an ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that the substitution of p-tolyl with mesityl provides a shift in emission wavelength.
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 Dopant 7 of Song by substituting the p-tolyl groups with mesityl groups, as taught by Song and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Both p-tolyl and mesityl are an aryl group. The substitution of p-tolyl with mesityl at positions R11, R12, and R14 of Formula 5-1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image3.png
243
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3 and 7.
Song in view of Hatakeyama does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama; however, Song does teach that the compound of Song can be used as the dopant with the anthracene hosts (a first host of Formula 1 in [0072] and a second host of Formula 3 in [0079]) in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device ([0010]).
Song teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device (“organic light emitting display device” in Fig. 2) comprising a substrate (110), a first electrode (anode, 160), a light emitting layer (162), and a second electrode (cathode, 164) (Fig. 2, [0034]-[0063]).
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 Song as modified by Hatakeyama by incorporating it as a dopant into the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Song and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of dopants in an organic light emitting device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Song as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a substrate, an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama as an emitter, a first host compound of Song, and a second host compound of Song), and a cathode, wherein the organic light emitting device is an optoelectronic device; the organic light emitting device is an organic light emitting diode; the light emitting layer materials are a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-14.
Song in view of Hatakeyama does not specifically disclose the Organic light emitting device of Song as modified by Hatakeyama is produced by a vacuum evaporation method; however, Song does teach that the organic layers of the organic light emitting device of Song can be formed by a deposition method ([0113]).
Hatakeyama teaches that the organic layers of an organic light emitting device can be produced by a vacuum evaporation method ([0404]).
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 method to produce the Organic light emitting device of Song as modified by Hatakeyama to a vacuum evaporation method, as taught by Song and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the product methods of an organic light emitting device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a method to produce the Organic light emitting device of Song as modified by Hatakeyama wherein the organic layers of the device are produced by a vacuum evaporation method, meeting all the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 6, Song discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer containing a first anthracene host, a second deuterated anthracene host, and a first blue dopant ([0010]), wherein the blue dopant can be represented by Formula 5-1 ([0080]-[0081]). Song exemplifies Dopant 8 as the Formula 5-1 ([0083]).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
637
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The compound Dopant 8 has p-tolyl groups (i.e. the parts enclosed by dashed circles in the figure above) at the positions corresponding to R11 and R12 of Formula 5-1, which does not read on the limitation of instant claims; however, Song does teach that R11 and R12 of the Formula 5-1 can be a C6-C30 aryl group ([0081]).
A p-tolyl group and a mesityl group are used as bulky substituents in B,N-containing polycyclic compounds as taught by Hatakeyama ([0136]). Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]). Mesityl is bulkier than p-tolyl such that an ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that the substitution of p-tolyl with mesityl provides a shift in emission wavelength.
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 Dopant 8 of Song by substituting the p-tolyl groups with mesityl groups, as taught by Song and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of p-tolyl with mesityl at positions R11 and R12 of Formula 5-1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image5.png
254
720
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama (2), which has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of claim 6. The only difference is that the unsubstituted phenyl at the position corresponding to R14 of Formula 5-1 of Song is required to be terphenyl. However, song does teach that the substituent at the position corresponding to R14 of Formula 5-1 of Song can be an C6-C30 aryl group ([0081]). Song exemplifies a terphenyl group as the substituent at the position corresponding to R14 of Formula 5-1 (see examples including at least Dopant 149 in [0083]).
PNG
media_image6.png
316
393
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Song as modified by Hatakeyama (2) by substituting one of unsubstituted phenyl at the position R14 with terphenyl, as taught by Song.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of unsubstituted phenyl with terphenyl at the position corresponding to R14 of Formula 5-1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama (3).
PNG
media_image7.png
322
722
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Song discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer containing a first anthracene host, a second deuterated anthracene host, and a first blue dopant ([0010]), wherein the blue dopant can be represented by Formula 5-1 ([0080]-[0081]). Song exemplifies Dopant 8 as the Formula 5-1 ([0083]).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
637
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The compound Dopant 8 has p-tolyl groups (i.e. the parts enclosed by dashed circles in the figure above) at the positions corresponding to R11 and R12 of Formula 5-1, which does not read on the limitation of instant claims; however, Song does teach that R11 and R12 of the Formula 5-1 can be a C6-C30 aryl group ([0081]).
A p-tolyl group and a mesityl group are used as bulky substituents in B,N-containing polycyclic compounds as taught by Hatakeyama ([0136]). Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]). Mesityl is bulkier than p-tolyl such that an ordinary skill in the art would acknowledge that the substitution of p-tolyl with mesityl provides a shift in emission wavelength.
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 Dopant 8 of Song by substituting the p-tolyl groups with mesityl groups, as taught by Song and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of p-tolyl with mesityl at positions R11 and R12 of Formula 5-1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image5.png
254
720
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama (2), which has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of claim 6. The only difference is that the unsubstituted phenyl at the position corresponding to R14 of Formula 5-1 of Song is required to be biphenyl. However, song does teach that the substituent at the position corresponding to R14 of Formula 5-1 of Song can be an C6-C30 aryl group ([0081]). Song exemplifies a biphenyl group as the substituent at the position corresponding to R14 of Formula 5-1 (see examples including at least Dopant 26 in [0083]).
PNG
media_image8.png
268
369
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 Song as modified by Hatakeyama (2) by substituting one of unsubstituted phenyl at the position R14 with biphenyl, as taught by Song.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of unsubstituted phenyl with biphenyl at the position corresponding to R14 of Formula 5-1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Song as modified by Hatakeyama (4).
PNG
media_image9.png
264
739
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0053998 A1, hereafter Kim) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0393419 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 12-15, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 and an anthracene compound of Formula 2 ([0014]).
PNG
media_image10.png
442
739
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Kim exemplifies an organic light emitting diode comprising a substrate, an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-216 as an emitter and Compound 1-216 as a host), a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is produced by vacuum evaporation (“vacuum-deposited”, Example 27 in [0286]-[0289] and Table 1).
The Compound 1-126 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula I. The only difference is that the isopropyl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 are required to be each a mesityl group; however, Kim does teach that R1 to R3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0020]) and exemplify a mesityl group as the substituted C5-C30 aryl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-11 in [0093]).
PNG
media_image11.png
294
428
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
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 1-216 of the organic light emitting diode of Kim by substituting the isopropyl groups with mesityl groups, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the position corresponding to R2 or R3 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting diode of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a substrate, an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama as an emitter and Compound 1-216 as a host), a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is produced by a vacuum evaporation method; the light emitting layer materials are a composition; the organic light emitting diode is an optoelectronic device.
PNG
media_image12.png
375
779
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In the device of Kim, the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the features of the organic molecule claimed in the instant claims because the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama comprises the structure of Applicant’s Formula I. It should be noted that the Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama does not read on the formula I; however, the compound reads on the claimed organic molecule, because the claim does not require the molecule to be represented by formula I but require to comprise the structure of formula I (emphasis added).
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of claims 1-5.
The Organic light emitting diode of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of claims 12-15.
Regarding claims 1-5, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 and an anthracene compound of Formula 2 ([0014]). Kim exemplifies Compound 1-1 as the Formula 1 ([0093]).
PNG
media_image13.png
303
621
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-1 does not have mesityl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of the Formula 1 of Kim; however, Kim does teach that R1 to R3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0020]) and exemplify a mesityl group as the substituted C5-C30 aryl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-11 in [0093]). Kim also exemplifies the substitution positions 3 and 3’ to substitute the substituents R2 and R3 (see examples including at least Compound 1-159 in [0093]).
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
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 1-1 of Kim by substituting mesityl groups at the positions 3 and 3’ in the figure above corresponding to the R2 and R3 of Formula 1 of Kim, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the positions corresponding to R2 or R3 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2).
PNG
media_image14.png
237
716
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of the instant claim 6; the only difference is that the unsubstituted phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim are required to be di-t-butyl phenyl; however, Kim does teach that the R4 of Formula 1 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0075]) and exemplify a di-t-butyl phenyl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-223 in [0093]).
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 Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) by substituting the unsubstituted phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim with di-t-butyl phenyl groups, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 with di-t-butyl phenyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (3).
PNG
media_image15.png
296
756
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 and an anthracene compound of Formula 2 ([0014]). Kim exemplifies Compound 1-1 as the Formula 1 ([0093]).
PNG
media_image13.png
303
621
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-1 does not have mesityl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of the Formula 1 of Kim; however, Kim does teach that R1 to R3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0020]) and exemplify a mesityl group as the substituted C5-C30 aryl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-11 in [0093]). Kim also exemplifies the substitution positions 3 and 3’ to substitute the substituents R2 and R3 (see examples including at least Compound 1-159 in [0093]).
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
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 1-1 of Kim by substituting mesityl groups at the positions 3 and 3’ in the figure above corresponding to the R2 and R3 of Formula 1 of Kim, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the positions corresponding to R2 or R3 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2).
PNG
media_image16.png
238
714
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of the instant claim 6; the only difference is that the unsubstituted phenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim is required to be a terphenyl; however, Kim does teach that the R4 of Formula 1 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0075]) and exemplify a terphenyl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-19 in [0093]).
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 Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) by substituting the unsubstituted phenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim with a terphenyl group, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 with terphenyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (4).
PNG
media_image17.png
325
756
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 and an anthracene compound of Formula 2 ([0014]). Kim exemplifies Compound 1-1 as the Formula 1 ([0093]).
PNG
media_image13.png
303
621
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-1 does not have mesityl groups at the positions corresponding to R2, R3 and R4 of the Formula 1 of Kim; however, Kim does teach that R1 to R4 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0020]) and exemplify a mesityl group as the substituted C5-C30 aryl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-11 in [0093]). Kim also exemplifies the substitution positions 3 and 3’ to substitute the substituents R2 and R3 (see examples including at least Compound 1-159 in [0093]).
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
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 1-1 of Kim by substituting mesityl groups at the positions 3 and 3’ in the figure above corresponding to the R2 and R3 of Formula 1 of Kim and substitute the phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim with mesityl, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the positions corresponding to R2 to R4 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (5).
PNG
media_image18.png
244
719
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 and an anthracene compound of Formula 2 ([0014]). Kim exemplifies Compound 1-1 as the Formula 1 ([0093]).
PNG
media_image13.png
303
621
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-1 does not have mesityl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of the Formula 1 of Kim; however, Kim does teach that R1 to R3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0020]) and exemplify a mesityl group as the substituted C5-C30 aryl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-11 in [0093]). Kim also exemplifies the substitution positions 3 and 3’ to substitute the substituents R2 and R3 (see examples including at least Compound 1-159 in [0093]).
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
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 1-1 of Kim by substituting mesityl groups at the positions 3 and 3’ in the figure above corresponding to the R2 and R3 of Formula 1 of Kim, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the positions corresponding to R2 or R3 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2).
PNG
media_image19.png
238
710
media_image19.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of the instant claim 8; the only difference is that the unsubstituted phenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim is required to be biphenyl; however, Kim does teach that the R4 of Formula 1 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0075]) and exemplify a biphenyl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-18 in [0093]).
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 Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) by substituting the unsubstituted phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim with a biphenyl group, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 with biphenyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (6).
PNG
media_image20.png
269
753
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9, Kim discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a light emitting layer containing a polycyclic compound of Formula 1 and an anthracene compound of Formula 2 ([0014]). Kim exemplifies Compound 1-1 as the Formula 1 ([0093]).
PNG
media_image13.png
303
621
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-1 does not have mesityl groups at the positions corresponding to R2 and R3 of the Formula 1 of Kim; however, Kim does teach that R1 to R3 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0020]) and exemplify a mesityl group as the substituted C5-C30 aryl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-11 in [0093]). Kim also exemplifies the substitution positions 3 and 3’ to substitute the substituents R2 and R3 (see examples including at least Compound 1-159 in [0093]).
Hatakeyama discloses a B,N-containing polycyclic compound used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]).
Hatakeyama teaches that a group having large steric hindrance provides adjustability of an emission wavelength and selectivity in synthesis ([0136]). Hatakeyama exemplifies a mesityl group,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the group having large steric hindrance ([0136]-[0137]).
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 1-1 of Kim by substituting mesityl groups at the positions 3 and 3’ in the figure above corresponding to the R2 and R3 of Formula 1 of Kim, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides high steric hindrance, adjustability of the emission wavelength, and the selectivity in synthesis, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the positions corresponding to R2 or R3 with a mesityl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2).
PNG
media_image19.png
238
710
media_image19.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula Ib of the instant claim 8; the only difference is that the unsubstituted phenyl at the position corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim is required to be cyclohexyl phenyl; however, Kim does teach that the R4 of Formula 1 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group ([0075]) and exemplify a cyclohexyl phenyl group (see examples including at least Compound 1-171 in [0093]).
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 Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (2) by substituting the unsubstituted phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 of Formula 1 of Kim with a cyclohexyl phenyl group, as taught by Kim and Hatakeyama.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of phenyl at the positions corresponding to R4 with cyclohexyl phenyl would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Kim as modified by Hatakeyama (7).
PNG
media_image21.png
270
750
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786