DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2019-140421) (US 2020/0411771 A1 is being relied upon as an English translation) in view of Song (US 2021/0296589 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14, 18, Kim teaches an OLED represented by substrate (1), an anode (2), a hole injection layer (5), a hole transfer layer (6), a hole control layer (7), a light emitting layer (8), an electron transfer layer (9), an electron injection layer (10) and a cathode (4) (paragraph 26). The light emitting layer include two hosts represented by CF1 and CF2 (paragraph 65). CF1 re be represented by Kim pg 13 (page 13):
PNG
media_image1.png
252
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim pg 13 reads on applicants’ Formula A wherein Ar1 = phenyl; L1 = single bond; Ar2 = naphthyl; R1-R8 = H.
CF2 can be represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
266
200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim pg 17 (page 17).
Kim pg 17 shows Ar3 = phenyl; L2 = single bond attached at R21; X = O; R(s) = H. Applicants’ amendment requires that Ar3 be substituted with at least one deuterium which Kim fails to mention.
Song teaches an OLED wherein the light emitting layer contains 1st and 2nd hosts materials and dopant (abstract). The hosts are anthracene derivatives. One of the host is a deuterated anthracene derivative resulting in emitting efficiency and a lifespan of the OLED and an organic light emitting device including the OLED are improved (paragraph 194). The deuterated anthracene derivative can be represented by Host 55 (page 15):
PNG
media_image3.png
380
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Host 55 reads on applicants’ Formula B wherein L2 is a single bond; There is a deuterium range is 18-20 which includes 1 to 5 deuterium atoms which meets the deuterium requirement of applicants’ Ar3. Host 55 (5 deuterium atoms on Ar3 as phenyl) MW ~412 and Kim pg 17 MW~400 differ by ~ 54.
Both Kim and Song teach OLED comprising one anthracene derivative with no deuterium atom while the other anthracene derivative contains deuterium which Song teaches results in improved emitting efficiency and a lifespan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have substituted the dibenzofuran of Kim with the deuterated dibenzofuran of Song since Song teaches said deuterium derivative (which reads on the instant limitations) results in improved emitting efficiency and a lifespan which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (claims 1-8, 10, 12, 18).
Kim pg 13 = applicants’
PNG
media_image4.png
242
150
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(per claim 14).
Song’s Host 55 = applicants’
PNG
media_image5.png
270
162
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(per claim 15)
Regarding Claim 16 , Kim in view of Song teaches an OLED wherein the light emitting layer contains a dopant represented by CF3 (paragraph 21) which can be represented by BD-2 (page 48):
.
PNG
media_image6.png
256
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
BD-2 reads on applicants’ D3 wherein T1-T3 = phenyl; X1 = B (per claim 16).
Regarding Claim 19, Kim in view of Song teaches that the compounds can be applied to form layers by solution coating method means spin coating, dip coating, doctor blading, inkjet printing, screen printing, a spray method, roll coating (paragraph 237) (per claim 19).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kim (KR 10-2019-140421) (US 2020/0411771 A1 is being relied upon as an English translation) in view of Song (US 2021/0296589 A1) and Yang (US 2004/0217934).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim teaches the OLED of claim 1 but fails to mention applications areas:
Yang teaches that OLEDs are used in flat panel display devices (paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used the OLED of Kim in known application areas which would have included in flat panel display devices as taught by Yang which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 20).
Response to Amendment
The office has modified the previous rejected to address applicant amendments
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786