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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 4/8/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended claims 1 and 2 to further limit the heterocyclic group for R1-R7 to be a C2 to C12 heterocyclic group. All of the compounds taught by Kim et al. (WO 2020/153713) necessarily comprise as one of the R1-R7 groups, a C16 heteroaryl group, which is mutually exclusive from the instantly filed claims. Applicants have also provided a certified English language translation of their foreign priority document KR-2020-0069201, which overcomes the prior art rejection to Kim A (WO 2021/096331). Further search has led to a new prior art rejection, as described below.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0308201). Lee et al. has two foreign priority dates of 3/29/19 and 10/30/19, both of which teach the subject matter relied upon in the pre-grant publication, which qualifies Lee et al. as a prior art reference.
Claims 1 and 16: Lee et al. teaches a composition comprising a first compound which is a phosphorescent iridium compound represented by Formula 1, a compound represented by Formula 2, and a compound represented by Formula 3 (abstract). The second and third compounds are employed as host materials and the first compound is employed as a dopant material. The working examples employ compound H1-14 as one host material and compound H-26 as a second host compound. Compound H1-14 has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
124
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 112). As applied to Chemical Formula 2 of claim 1, compoudn H1-14 has Ar3 equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group, R8-R11 equal to hydrogen atoms, a4* and a3* are equal to CRb with Rb equal to hydrogen atoms, a1* and a1* represent a linking carbon atom which is linked to chemical formula 3 with L3 equal to a single bond, L4 and L5 equal to an unsubstituted p-phenylene group, Ar4 and Ar5 equal to unsubstituted phenyl groups, and R12 equal to a hydrogen atom.
While the working examples do not include a first compound which satisfies Chemical Formula 1 as instantly claimed, the overall teachings of Lee et al. render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art such compounds. Specifically, Lee et al. teaches compounds H2-1 through H2-61 which are explicitly taught as being suitable as a host material. The substitution of any one of these host materials for host material H2-6 is prima facie obivous to a person having ordinary skill in the art. This includes the employment of compound H2-17. As applied to Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1, compound H2-17, which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
136
126
media_image2.png
Greyscale
has X equal to O, R1 and R2 being joined together to form an unsubstituted benzene ring, R3-R7 equal to hydrogen atoms, Z1-Z3 equal to N, L1 and L2 equal to a single bond, and Ar1 and Ar2 equal to unsubstitute phenyl. Lee et al. therefore teaches a dual host system for an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first host which includes compounds satisfying Chemical Formula (1) of claim 1 and a second host which includes a compound satisfying Chemical Formula 2 of claim 1. It would have therefore been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed first and second host materials from the groups disclosed by Lee et al. because Lee et al. provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. Under the holding of Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the disclosure of a list of compounds from which a selection is made renders the selection of a specific combination obvious, even if the reference does not specifically ‘point to’ the claimed combination, provided the reference teaches that the members of the groups are expected to function similarly. In this instance, Lee et al. teaches that each of the 72 explicitly taught first host materials and each of the 61 explicitly tuaght second host materials disclosed in paragraphs 0241-0242 are each suitable for use in the same light-emitting layer. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining any member of the first group with any member of the second group to achieve the stated goal of low operational voltages and improved lifetimes as desired by Lee et al. The combinations which read on claim 1 as rendered obvious by Lee et al. do not apply to newly added claim 16 which refers to further limitations in the optional instance where any of the variables recited therein are substituted. As such, Lee et al. may also be relied upon to reject claim 16.
Claims 2 and 3: Compound H2-17 as described above also satisfies Chemical Formula 1-1 of claims 2 and 3 with Rc and Rd equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claims 4 and 5: The exemplified host compound H2-17 has Ar1 and Ar2 equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group, thereby satifying claim 4 and the first structure of claim 5.
Claims 7-9: The exemplified host compound H1-14 satisfies Chemical Formula 2A of claim 7 and Chemical Formula 2A-2 of claim 8 with all variable assignments being described in claim 1 above. Compound H1-14 also satisfies the limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10: In the exemplified host compound H1-14, L3 is a single bond and L4 and L5 are unsubstituted phenylene groups, Ar3 is equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group, and Ar4 and Ar5 are equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group, thereby satisfying claim 10.
Claim 11: Compound H1-14 is the same as compound 2-2 of claim 11, thereby satisfying claim 11.
Claims 12-14: The exemplified devices taught by Lee et al. employ a 1:1 ratio of the first and second host material present in a light-emitting layer, which satisfies the limitations of claims 12-14.
Claim 15: The devices taught by Lee et al. are intended to be employed as display devices, thereby satisfying claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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. Lee et al. does not teach or suggest any of the compounds as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights