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.
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 42-58, 60-73, and 75-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al (WO 2018/211377) (Watabe) in view of Ryu et al (US 2013/0105771) (Ryu).
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2018/211377, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2020/0176692 which is an English language equivalent of the reference because the US PG-PUB is the national stage entry of the international application upon which the WO document is based.
In reference to claims 42-50, 52-53, 55-58, 60-71, 73, and 75-59, Watabe teaches an organic light emitting element comprising an anode and a cathode and a first, second and third layer between the electrodes, the second layer is between the first layer and the third layer in contact with each other in that order, the first layer includes a first organic compound, the third layer has a function of emitting light and the refractive index of the first layer is lower than the refractive index of the second layer; and the refractive index of the first layer is lower than the refractive index of the third layer (Watable [0017] [0019]). Based on numerals, drawings and examples it is clear that the first layer is a Hole injection layer, the second layer a hole transport layer and the third layer an emitting layer (see Watabe examples in Tables, fig 1, etc. [0089]). Watabe further teaches that the refractive index of the first organic compound is higher than or equal to 1 and lower than or equal to 1.73 (Watabe [0073]) and that such can be achieved by a compound with a t-butyl group or other materials and a hole injection property (Watabe [0108] to [0110]).
Watabe does not expressly state that the wavelength for the refractive index is 633 or 465 exclusively but exemplifies various materials with indices in this range for a wavelength of 633 nm (See Watabe Table 18 [0452]). It would be expected that Watabe intends to prefer refractive indices be in the claimed range for various wavelengths relevant to device operation. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Watabe further teachtes that the second layer (or hole transport layer) is a layer containing a hole transporting materials and that known materials can be used so long as they have a property of transporting more holes than electrons (Watabe [0169]).
With respect to the difference, Ryu teaches, in analogous art, a compound A470 as shown below as a hole transport material for an organic light emitting diode and that its use therein improves lifespan, efficiency, electrochemical stability and thermal stability and decrease driving voltage (Ryu [0026] [0099] [0110]).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using compound A470 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound A470 as described by Ryu in order to improve lifespan, efficiency, electrochemical stability and thermal stability and decrease driving voltage, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 42: Reads on an anode, cathode, the third layer reads on the EL Layer, the second layer or hole transport layer reads on the second layer and the first layer or hole injection layer reads on a first layer, the compound A-470 is a first organic compound comprising an arylamine structure, a first group comprising a carbazole, a second group comprising a dibenzothiophene structure and a third group comprising a biphenyl group and wherein the refractive index of the first layer is lower than the refractive index of the light emitting layer.
For Claims 43-44: The overlapping range reads on the index within the claimed range.
For Claims 45-46: Reads on a hole transport layer and the overlapping range reads on the index within the claimed range.
For Claims 47-48: The tert-butyl group is also methyl groups which is a plurality of alkyl groups.
For Claims 49-50: Reads on a carbazole bonded at the 3-position through a phenylene.
For Claims 52-53: Reads on a phenylene.
For Claims 55-57: Reads on wherein the dibenzothiophene is bonded through a meta phenylene to the amine nitrogen atom.
For Claims 58: Reads on biphenyl.
For Claim 60: Reads on the claimed layers.
For Claim 61: Reads on wherein A-470 is a compound G1, Ar1 is a group g1, Ar2 is g3 and Ar3 is a biphenyl.
For Claims 62-63: The overlapping range reads on the index within the claimed range.
For Claims 64-65: Reads on a hole transport layer and the overlapping range reads on the index within the claimed range.
For Claims 66-67: The tert-butyl group is also methyl groups which is a plurality of alkyl groups.
For Claim 68: Reads on X is S.
For Claim 69: Reads on L-2.
For Claim 70: Reads on L-2.
For Claim 71: Reads on g3-2.
For Claim 73: Reads on Ar3-1.
For Claim 75: Reads on Ar3-1-1.
For Claim 76: Reads on Ar3-1-1.
For Claim 77: Reads on G2.
For Claim 78: Reads on the claimed layers.
For Claim 79: Reads on a material.
In reference to claims 51, 54 and 72, Watabe in view of Ryu teaches the device as described above for claim 42 comprising compound A-470 in the second layer that differs from the instantly claimed limitations by a positional isomer only. It is noted that compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound presently claimed, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claims 42-50, 52-53, 55-56, 59, 60-69, 71, 73-74, and 78-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al (WO 2018/211377) (Watabe) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0221874) (Kim).
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2018/211377, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2020/0176692 which is an English language equivalent of the reference because the US PG-PUB is the national stage entry of the international application upon which the WO document is based.
In reference to claims 42-50, 52-53, 55-56, 59, 60-69, 71, 73-74, and 78-79, Watabe teaches an organic light emitting element comprising an anode and a cathode and a first, second and third layer between the electrodes, the second layer is between the first layer and the third layer in contact with each other in that order, the first layer includes a first organic compound, the third layer has a function of emitting light and the refractive index of the first layer is lower than the refractive index of the second layer; and the refractive index of the first layer is lower than the refractive index of the third layer (Watable [0017] [0019]). Based on numerals, drawings and examples it is clear that the first layer is a Hole injection layer, the second layer a hole transport layer and the third layer an emitting layer (see Watabe examples in Tables, fig 1, etc. [0089]). Watabe further teaches that the refractive index of the first organic compound is higher than or equal to 1 and lower than or equal to 1.73 (Watabe [0073]) and that such can be achieved by a compound with a t-butyl group or other materials and a hole injection property (Watabe [0108] to [0110]).
Watabe does not expressly state that the wavelength for the refractive index is 633 or 465 exclusively but exemplifies various materials with indices in this range for a wavelength of 633 nm (See Watabe Table 18 [0452]). It would be expected that Watabe intends to prefer refractive indices be in the claimed range for various wavelengths relevant to device operation. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Watabe further teaches that the second layer (or hole transport layer) is a layer containing a hole transporting material and that known materials can be used so long as they have a property of transporting more holes than electrons (Watabe [0169]).
With respect to the difference, Kim teaches, in analogous art, a compound J-43 as shown below as a hole transport material for an organic light emitting diode and that its use therein improves device characteristics such as lifespan, luminous efficiency and driving voltage (Kim [0012] [0018] [0043] [0078]).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using compound J-43 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound J-43 as described by Ryu in order to device characteristics such as lifespan, luminous efficiency and driving voltage, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 42: Reads on an anode, cathode, the third layer reads on the EL Layer, the second layer or hole transport layer reads on the second layer and the first layer or hole injection layer reads on a first layer, the compound J-43 is a first organic compound comprising an arylamine structure, a first group comprising a carbazole, a second group comprising a dibenzothiophene structure and a third group comprising dibenzofuran group and wherein the refractive index of the first layer is lower than the refractive index of the light emitting layer.
For Claims 43-44: The overlapping range reads on the index within the claimed range.
For Claims 45-46: Reads on a hole transport layer and the overlapping range reads on the index within the claimed range.
For Claims 47-48: The tert-butyl group is also methyl groups which is a plurality of alkyl groups.
For Claims 49-50: Reads on a carbazole bonded at the 3-position through a phenylene.
For Claims 52-53: Reads on a phenylene.
For Claims 55-56: Reads on wherein the dibenzothiophene is bonded through a phenylene to the amine nitrogen atom.
For Claim 59: Reads on dibenzofuran.
For Claim 60: Reads on the claimed layers.
For Claim 61: Reads on wherein A-470 is a compound G1, Ar1 is a group g1, Ar2 is g3 and Ar3 is a group of g1.
For Claims 62-63: The overlapping range reads on the index within the claimed range.
For Claims 64-65: Reads on a hole transport layer and the overlapping range reads on the index within the claimed range.
For Claims 66-67: The tert-butyl group is also methyl groups which is a plurality of alkyl groups.
For Claim 68: Reads on X is S.
For Claim 69: Reads on L-1.
For Claim 71: Reads on g3-2.
For Claim 73: Reads on Ar3-2.
For Claim 74: Reads on Ar3-1-1.
For Claim 78: Reads on the claimed layers.
For Claim 79: Reads on a material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Watabe in view of Ryu does not realize the same issue as realized by the instant specification. This argument is not convincing. Regardless of the validity of the assertion that Watabe does not contemplate the same issues, it is not required that the prior art teach the same goal in order to arrive at the claimed device and composition. Watabe teaches the claimed properties of refractive index in the first layer and hole transport property of the second layer and suggests using known hole transport materials. Ryu provides motivation to use known hole transport materials that meet the instant claim requirements. The resulting compositions meet the requirements of the instant claims.
Applicant further argues that the instant combination gives rise to unexpected results. This argument is not convincing for at least the following reasons.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in device properties including voltage, lifetime and effiicency, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compositions encompassed by the instant claims. For example, the instantly claimed first layer can comprise any material so long as the material has a lower refractive index than that of the material in the emitting layer (which can also be any material) leading to an essentially infinite number of possible compositions. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming thousands of more compounds and even more devices. As Applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example devices taught by Watabe, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
Furhter, the alleged improvements correspond exactly to the improvements that are taught to be expected by the prior art of record. For example, Ryu teaches that the substitution of specific hole transport materials set forth therein leads to improvements in efficiency, lifetime and driving voltage (Ryu [0026] [0099] [0110]). It is unclear that any of the specific “comparative” devices correspond to Watabe or Ryu.
Taken together, Applicant has failed to meet the standard required to demonstrate unexpected results for the claimed subject matter.
Applicant appears to have made no remarks concerning the outstanding rejection under 35 USC 103 over Watabe in view of Kim and therefore those rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights