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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2020-0078447, filed on 06/26/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/15/2022 and 07/25/2024 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 11/15/2022. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 11/15/2022, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claim 7 has been amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given on pages 14, Table 6 (page 79), Table 7 (page 80), and Table 8 (page 81) are illegible. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are not unclear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing font size, making the font bold, and/or making the lines thicker.
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 (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 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 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0200373 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Cho discloses Compound 320B (page 110), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Cho Formula 2 (abstract), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
296
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Cho is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the substituents on the triphenylene core.
Given the general formula and teachings of Cho, 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 Compound 320B 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 electroluminescent device of Cho and possess the properties taught by Cho. 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.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when d1 and d2 are 0 and d3 is 0, L1 and L2 are a direct bond, Z1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 and Z2 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-4. In Chemical Formula 1-1, X1 through X3 are nitrogen atoms, Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group and Ar2 is a C12 heteroaryl (carbazolyl) group. In Formula 1-4, d4 is 0 and D is not present, Y1 is NR’ and R’ is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
With respect to claim 2, Cho teaches the compound of claim 1, and L1 and L2 are the same and are a direct bond, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 3, Cho teaches the compound of claim 1, and Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group and Ar2 is a C12 heteroaryl (carbazolyl) group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Cho teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above. Chemical Formula 1-2 and 1-3 are required only in the alternative in parent claim 1, and so are not required in this rejection. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Cho teaches (iso)quinoline in Formula 5-22 on page 24, and teaches benzimidazole in Formula 5-56 on page 26.
With respect to claim 5, Cho teaches the compound of claim 1, and Z1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Cho teaches the compound of claim 1, and the positional isomer discussed above is identical to instant compound 1-75.
With respect to claim 7, Cho teaches the compound of claim 1 and Cho also teaches an organic light emitting element comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode) (paragraphs 0039-0041 and Figure 1), and the organic layer (emission layer) comprises a compound of Chemical Formula 2 (paragraph 0009), such as the compound of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of claim 1 in an organic light emitting element with the claimed structure, as taught by Cho.
With respect to claim 8, Cho teaches the organic light emitting device of claim 7, and the organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer, and the light emitting layer comprises the compound (paragraph 0009), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Cho teaches the organic light emitting device of claim 7, and the organic material layer includes an emission layer, and the light emitting layer includes a host, which includes the compound (paragraph 0009).
With respect to claim 10, Cho teaches the organic light emitting device of claim 8, and Cho also teaches the emission layer should also comprise a first host represented by Formula 1 (paragraph 0009), such as Compound 180B (page 101), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
246
376
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 3 when r31 is 4 and R31 is hydrogen atoms, r32 is 4 and R32 is hydrogen atoms, and Ar31 and Ar32 are both an unsubstituted C12 aryl (biphenyl).
Cho teaches that when a first host does not include an electron transporting group and the second host comprises an electron transporting group (triazine), an organic light emitting device may have improved efficiency and lifespan.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first host (compound 180B), which does not have an electron transporting group, with the second host (compound 320B of the independent claim), which does comprise an electron transporting group, in order to obtain an organic light emitting device with improved efficiency and lifespan, as taught by Cho.
With respect to claim 12, Cho teaches the organic light emitting device of claim 10, and the compound of Chemical Formula 3 is identical to instant compound 3-42.
With respect to claim 13, Cho discloses a composition for forming an organic material layer (an emission layer), including a first and second host compound (abstract).
Cho discloses Compound 320B (page 110), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Cho Formula 2 (abstract), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
296
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Cho is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the substituents on the triphenylene core.
Given the general formula and teachings of Cho, 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 Compound 320B 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 electroluminescent device of Cho and possess the properties taught by Cho. 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.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when d1 and d2 are 0 and d3 is 0, L1 and L2 are a direct bond, Z1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 and Z2 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-4. In Chemical Formula 1-1, X1 through X3 are nitrogen atoms, Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group and Ar2 is a C12 heteroaryl (carbazolyl) group. In Formula 1-4, d4 is 0 and D is not present, Y1 is NR’ and R’ is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
Cho also teaches the emission layer should also comprise a first host represented by Formula 1 (paragraph 0009), such as Compound 180B (page 101), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
246
376
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 3 when r31 is 4 and R31 is hydrogen atoms, r32 is 4 and R32 is hydrogen atoms, and Ar31 and Ar32 are both an unsubstituted C12 aryl (biphenyl).
Cho teaches that when a first host does not include an electron transporting group and the second host comprises an electron transporting group (triazine), an organic light emitting device may have improved efficiency and lifespan.
While Cho does not specifically use these two compounds in a composition, Cho does teach that the emission layer can be formed using an ink-jet printing method (paragraph 0095), which implies the presence of a composition.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a composition including the first host (compound 180B), which does not have an electron transporting group, with the second host (compound 320B of the independent claim), which does have an electron transporting group, in order to obtain an organic light emitting device with improved efficiency and lifespan, as taught by Cho.
With respect to claim 14, Cho teaches the composition of claim 13, and Cho also teaches that the ratio of the first and second host compounds should be in a range of 1:10 to about 10:1 (paragraph 0249).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed ratio, as taught by Cho.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0200373 A1) above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2017/0213988 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Cho teaches the organic light emitting device of claim 8, as discussed above.
However, Cho does not teach nor fairly suggest the light emitting layer comprises a compound of instant Chemical Formula 2.
In analogous art, Park teaches a heterocyclic compound which significantly improves the lifetime, efficiency, electrochemical stability, and thermal stability of an organic light emitting device when contained in the organic layer (abstract).
Park gives an example of the heterocyclic compound in Compound 2-2 (page 52), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
306
330
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 2 when r21 is 4 and R21 is hydrogen atoms, r22 is 2 and R22 is hydrogen atoms, r23 is 4 and R23 is hydrogen atoms, r24 is 4 and R24 are hydrogen atoms, L21 is a direct bond, and Ar21 and Ar22 are a C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heterocyclic compound of Park in the organic layer of the device of Cho in order to significantly improve the lifetime, efficiency, electrochemical stability, and thermal stability of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Park.
With respect to claim 11, Cho and Park teach the device of claim 10, and the compound of Chemical Formula 2 is identical to instant compound 2-2, as pictured above.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0200373 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 2017/0213988 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Cho discloses a composition for forming an organic material layer (an emission layer), including a first and second host compound (abstract).
Cho discloses Compound 320B (page 110), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Cho Formula 2 (abstract), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
296
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Cho is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the substituents on the triphenylene core.
Given the general formula and teachings of Cho, 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 Compound 320B 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 electroluminescent device of Cho and possess the properties taught by Cho. 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.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when d1 and d2 are 0 and d3 is 0, L1 and L2 are a direct bond, Z1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 and Z2 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-4. In Chemical Formula 1-1, X1 through X3 are nitrogen atoms, Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group and Ar2 is a C12 heteroaryl (carbazolyl) group. In Formula 1-4, d4 is 0 and D is not present, Y1 is NR’ and R’ is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
While Cho does not specifically teach a composition, Cho does teach that the emission layer can be formed using an ink-jet printing method (paragraph 0095), which implies the presence of a composition.
However, Cho does not teach nor fairly suggest the light emitting layer comprises a compound of instant Chemical Formula 2.
In analogous art, Park teaches a heterocyclic compound which significantly improves the lifetime, efficiency, electrochemical stability, and thermal stability of an organic light emitting device when contained in the organic layer (abstract).
Park gives an example of the heterocyclic compound in Compound 2-2 (page 52), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
306
330
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 2 when r21 is 4 and R21 is hydrogen atoms, r22 is 2 and R22 is hydrogen atoms, r23 is 4 and R23 is hydrogen atoms, r24 is 4 and R24 are hydrogen atoms, L21 is a direct bond, and Ar21 and Ar22 are a C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heterocyclic compound of Park in the organic layer of the device of Cho in order to significantly improve the lifetime, efficiency, electrochemical stability, and thermal stability of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Park.
With respect to claim 14, Cho and Park teach the composition of claim 13, and Cho also teaches that the ratio of the first and second host compounds should be in a range of 1:10 to about 10:1 (paragraph 0249).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed ratio, as taught by Cho.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (WO 2011/149240 A2) – teaches relevant compounds
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786