DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0328154 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘154”) in view of Kang et al. (US 2022/0123230 A1) (hereafter “Kang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-12: Kim ‘154 discloses an organic electroluminescence element comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraph [0067] and Table 1: Device Example 2}.
The organic layer comprises an organic material composition comprising a first host compound and a second host compound {paragraph [0067] and Table 1: Device Example 2}.
The host materials are present at a weight ratio of 1:1 {paragraph [0067]}.
The first host compound has the structure shown below {Table 2 and p. 53: Compound C-179}.
PNG
media_image1.png
748
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘154 does not teach that the device comprises a compound having the structure of the instant Formula (1) as the second host material.
However, Kim ‘154 teaches that the second host material has the structure of Formula (2) of Kim ‘154 which can further have the structure of Formula 2-11 of Kim ‘154 {paragraphs [0013] and [0050]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
362
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
342
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where HAr is a 3- to 30- membered heteroaryl and L2 can be a single bond {paragraphs [0014]-[0016]} and at least two of R21 or R22 are linked to form a ring {paragraph [0017]}.
Kang teaches compounds useful as host materials in organic electroluminescence devices {paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0041], [0044], and [0058]}.
Kang exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraph [0044] and p. 19: Compound C-65}.
PNG
media_image4.png
756
968
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The compound of Kang shown above has the structure of Formula (2) of Kim ‘154 {paragraphs [0013]-[0017]}.
Kang teaches that organic electroluminescent devices comprising the compounds of Kang have improved efficiency and lifetime {abstract and paragraphs [0019] and [0089}.
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 device of Kim ‘154 such that the second host material of Kim ‘154 was the compound of Kang shown above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘154 and Kang. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the described options for the 2nd host material of Kim ‘154 and the exemplified compounds of Kang) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means selecting a compound that when used in an organic electroluminescent device having improved efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Kang.
Regarding claim 12: Kim ‘154 as modified by Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
An organic electroluminescence device is an electronic device.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0359216 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘216”) in view of Kang et al. (US 2022/0123230 A1) (hereafter “Kang”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-12: Kim ‘216 discloses an organic electroluminescence element comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraph [0089] and Table 1: Device Example 3}.
The organic layer comprises an organic material composition comprising a first host compound and a second host compound {paragraph [0089] and Table 1: Device Example 3}.
The host materials are present at a weight ratio of 1:1 {paragraph [0089]}.
The first host compound has the structure shown below {Table 2 and p. 113: Compound C-179}.
PNG
media_image1.png
748
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘216 does not teach that the device comprises a compound having the structure of the instant Formula (1) as the second host material.
However, Kim ‘216 teaches that the second host material has the structure of Formula (2) of Kim ‘216,
PNG
media_image5.png
52
234
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, where Ar2 has the structure of Formula (3) of Kim ‘216 shown below {paragraphs [0014]-[0018]}.
PNG
media_image6.png
332
836
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where HAr is a 3- to 20- membered heteroaryl and L2 can be a single bond {paragraphs [0016]-[0017]}.
Kang teaches compounds useful as host materials in organic electroluminescence devices {paragraphs [0007], [0019], [0041], [0044], and [0058]}.
Kang exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraph [0044] and p. 18: Compound C-63}.
PNG
media_image7.png
444
494
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound of Kang shown above has the structure of Formula (2) of Kim ‘216 {paragraphs [0014]-[0019]}.
Kang teaches that organic electroluminescent devices comprising the compounds of Kang have improved efficiency and lifetime {abstract and paragraphs [0019] and [0089}.
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 device of Kim ‘216 such that the second host material of Kim ‘216 was the compound of Kang shown above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘216 and Kang. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the described options for the 2nd host material of Kim ‘216 and the exemplified compounds of Kang) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means selecting a compound that when used in an organic electroluminescent device having improved efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Kang.
Where in the compound of Kang shown above, the instant R2 can be equated with the carbazolyl linked benzene moiety where L2 is bivalent carbazolyl, and Ar2 is phenyl.
Regarding claim 12: Kim ‘216 as modified by Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
An organic electroluminescence device is an electronic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, Kim et al. (US 2021/0359216 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘216”) in view of Kang et al. (US 2022/0123230 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) can be interpreted as the closest prior art. Kang is relied upon to teach the compounds having the structure of the instant Formula (1). However, Kang does not teach that a nitrogen containing six-membered ring is one of the instant R1 to R4. Furthermore, the prior art does not teach modifying the compounds of Kang such that one of the instant R1 to R4 comprises a nitrogen containing six-membered ring. Additionally, even if such teachings were in the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude that both modifying a compound of Kang and using it as the second host material of Kim ‘216 would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786