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 1-15, 18-19, 21, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2020/0388766) (Kim) in view of Cho et al (US 2020/0176688) (Cho).
In reference to claims 1-15, 18-19, 21, 25 and 26, Kim teaches an organic optoelectronic diode comprising an anode, a cathode and a light emitting layer between the anode and cathode (Kim [0075] to [0090]). Kim teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a first host represented by chemical formula 1, for example compound 32 (Kim p. 11) as shown below and a second host represented by a combination of formula 6 and 7, for example compound D-41 (Kim p. 25) as shown below (Kim [0091]) at a ratio of 1:9 to 6:4 (Kim [0131]).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
282
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim does not expressly teach that the second host compound includes an additional material of formula 2 as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Cho teaches, in analogous art, compositions for organic optoelectronic diodes comprising mixtures of indolocarbazole compounds of formula 3 (that include compounds such as D-41 of Kim, called compound B-1 therein Cho p. 30) that are combined with an azine substituted indolocarbazole compound formed from formula 1 and 2 (Cho [0010]) specifically compounds such as A-1 (Cho p. 11) as shown below and that these materials can be mixed at a varieity of ratios to control the mobility of charges including from 2:8 to 8:2 (Cho [0108]) and can be used with additional host compounds (Cho [0109]).
PNG
media_image3.png
210
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cho further teaches that this combination results in improved hole transportation capability leading to excellent life span and luminous efficiency (Cho [0070] [0202]; [0023]).
In light of the motivation of using additional indolocarbazole host A-1 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 additional indolocarbazole host A-1 as described by Cho in order to provide a device with excellent life span and efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
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).
For Claim 1: Reads on an anode, cathode, light emitting layer wherein compound D-41 of Kim reads on chemical formula 1 wherein A is benzeneL1 and L2 are each phenylene and Ar1 and Ar2 are each phenyl, Compound A-1 of Cho reads on chemical formula 2 wherein X1 to X3 are each N, L’ is a single bond, Y’ is N(Ar13) Ar13 is phenyl, Ar11 is phenyl and Ar12 is dibenzofuran, and compound 32 of Kim reads on formula 3 wherein Y is O, L is a single bond, X1 to X3 are each N, Ar22 is dibenzofuran, Ar23 is phenyl and Ar21 is biphenyl.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula 1-5.
For Claim 3: Reads on phenylene.
For Claim 4: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 5: Reads on the first compound.
For Claim 6: Reads on formula 2-1.
For Claim 7: Reads on all of Z1 to Z3 are N.
For Claim 8: Reads on wherein L’ is a single bond.
For Claim 9: Reads on wherein Ar11 is phenyl and Ar12 is dibenzofuran.
For Claim 10: Reads on hydrogen.
For Claim 11: Reads on wherein Ar13 is phenyl and R14 and R15 are not present.
For Claim 12: Reads on the compound in row 3, column 2 of page 24.
For Claim 13: Reads on wherein X1 to X3 are each N.
For Claim 14: Reads on wherein L is a single bond.
For Claim 15: Reads on wherein Ar21 is biphenyl.\
For Claim 18: Reads on 4b.
For Claim 19: Reads on wherein Ar22 is dibenzofuran and Ar23 is phenyl.
For Claim 21: Reads on formula 3-2.
For Claim 25: Reads on the compound in row 1, column 4 on page 115 of claims.
For Claim 26: Reads on the claimed ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant initially argues that Kim does not teach the three host compound mixture as instantly claimed including the third host including an additional “N-type host compound”. This argument is not convincing. Kim is not relied upon to teach a third host compound. Instead, Cho teaches that there is known improvements from modifying the indolocarbazole host of Kim to comprise additional indolocarbazole hosts.
Applicant also argues that Cho does not teach the three host compound mixtures as claimed. Again, Cho is relied upon to teach an additional indolocarbazole host compound that provides improvements in efficiency and lifetime when combined with the indolocarbazole host compound of Kim. As Kim already teaches a combination of two host compounds, the combination of the indolocarbazole of Cho with the hosts of Kim results in the claimed three host combination. Further, Cho expressly teaches that the combination of indolocarbazole compounds can be used with additional host materials, such as the host compound of formula 1 of Kim (Cho [0109]).
Applicant also argues that Cho teaches a red device and Kim teaches a green device and that it would be unpredictable how including the N-type host of Cho in the light emitting layer of the device of Kim that already includes a different n-type host would affect device performance. Neither Cho nor Kim expressly limit the host materials to green or red emitting materials and each describe a broad array of possible emitting dopants. Further, Cho teaches that the mixture of Cho can include additional host materials and specifically points to improvements from modifying the indolocarbazole of Kim to be a mixture of indolocarbazole compounds. Taken together, it does indeed seem that the combination is obvious and would be expected to result in improvements in device lifetime and efficiency as taught by Cho.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination results in synergistic effects that result in improvements in efficiency and lifetime. This argument is not convincing.
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 efficiency and lifetime, 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 improvements demonstrated are the exact same improvements taught to result from the modification of Kim by Cho (device lifetime and efficiency). Applicant argues that it is also the result of specifically claimed ratios of materials. However, these ratios are broadly claimed and the prior art both teach the claimed ranges and teach that the ratios are adjustable to optimize charge mobility and device properties. Further, the magnitude of the differences are small and inconsistent wherein some comparative examples have efficiencies or lifetimes that are better than some of the inventive devices.
Third, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, Applicant argues that the instant results are ‘synergistic’ effects from the specifically claimed compositions. However, such synergistic effects are highly specific to the material combinations, and the instant genera of compounds are incredibly large and do not account for the many variables that certainly contribute to such synergistic effects. For example, modification of additional layers in devices (e.g. the hole transporting or electron transporting layers) would certainly result in poorer performance for some host combinations and better performance of others, likely reversing the claimed “synergistic” effects of the claimed combinations. Further, such synergistic effects would not be reasonably expected for all claimed combinations of host materials as each of the genera are so massive as to include a near infinite number of structures. 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 compounds taught by Kim in view of Cho, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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