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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (WO 2020/060288) (hereafter “Chan”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576) (hereafter "Li") and Takeda (WO 2008/117889) (hereafter "Takeda").
Regarding claims 1-10 and 17-20, Chan teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (pages 30-34 of the machine translation). Chan teaches that the light emitting layer comprises the following compounds
PNG
media_image1.png
125
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
116
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image3.png
218
166
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
135
167
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(pages 30-34 of the machine translation).
PNG
media_image3.png
218
166
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is the same as applicant’s BCz-3 and
PNG
media_image4.png
135
167
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is the same as applicant’s GD4. Chan teaches that
PNG
media_image1.png
125
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
116
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
can be deuterated (page 3 of the machine translation).
Chan does not specifically where
PNG
media_image1.png
125
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
116
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are deuterated.
Li teaches organic electroluminescent devices which contain deuterated or semi-deuterated organic compounds (abstract). Li further teaches that deuterium acts an apparent electron-donating inductive substituent compared to hydrogen and this isotope effect can be applied to design new luminescent materials with enhanced charge-injection ability (paragraph [0009]). The carbon-deuterium bond is stronger, more stable, and reacts more slowly than the carbon-hydrogen bond and this means that the deuterated organic system has better thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices (paragraph [0009]).
Takeda teaches electroluminescent devices comprising carbazole compounds in the hole transporting layer (pages 21-28 and page 70 lines 4-14). Takeda teaches that the carbazole compound comprises deuterium atoms and teaches that when the compound comprises deuterium atoms and used in the electroluminescent device the device has an improved lifetime (page 70 lines 4-14 Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compounds of Chan so some of all hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium atoms, as taught by Li and Takeda. The motivation, as taught by Li and Takeda, would have been to improve the thermal stability of the compound and the lifetime of the device comprising the compound. The compounds of Chan can be fully and partially deuterated and can be deuterated to meet the applicant’s claimed compounds AZT002-D1 to AZT002-D6 and AZT041-D1 to AZT041-D6.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (WO 2020/060288) (hereafter “Chan”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576) (hereafter "Li") and Takeda (WO 2008/117889) (hereafter "Takeda") as applied to claims 1-10 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (WO 2020/138872) (hereafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Chan teaches that the electron transporting layer can comprise
PNG
media_image5.png
96
251
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(pages 30-34 of the machine translation).
Chan in view of Li and Takeda does not where the electron transporting layer comprises a compound that meets the applicant’s claimed compound.
Yoon teaches that the following compounds can be used as electron transporting materials and are substituents for each other,
PNG
media_image5.png
96
251
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
95
222
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image7.png
115
227
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [226]-[227]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electron transporting material in Chan in view of Li and Takeda,
PNG
media_image5.png
96
251
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, with
PNG
media_image6.png
95
222
media_image6.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image7.png
115
227
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as taught by Yoon. The substitution would have been one know electron transporting material for another and Yoon teaches that the compounds are equivalents of each other and can be used for the same purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds of Yoon can be used as electron transporting materials in the device of Chan in view of Li and Takeda.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (WO 2020/060288) (hereafter “Chan”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576) (hereafter "Li") and Takeda (WO 2008/117889) (hereafter "Takeda") as applied to claims 1-10 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2009/0033212) (hereafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 13-16, Chan in view of Li and Takeda does not teach where the device has multiple light emitting layers/units.
Ahn teaches that one can make a white light emitting device by having different light emitting layer with in the electroluminescent device (paragraphs [0033]-[0044]). Ahn teaches that the light emitting layer emit different light and can emit green light, blue light, and red/orange/yellow light and the arrangement of the layers can vary (paragraphs [0033]-[0044]). Ahn teaches that some of the light emitting layer can emit the same color and when the layers emit the same color the layers can compose the same materials (paragraphs [0033]-[0044] and [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chan in view if Li and Takeda to compose multiple light emitting layers, where the layers can emit different color and/or the same color including blue, green, red, yellow, or orange and the order of the layers can change, as taught by Ahn. The motivation would have been to make a white light emitting device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR2020-0034623 teaches compounds similar to applicant’s formula 1, except that the compounds are not deuterated as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights