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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 6 July 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
The amendments to claims 1 and 11 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-5 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Arai et al. (JP 2015-126140 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Arai”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendments to claims 1 and 11 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-6 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and further in view of Arai et al. (JP 2015-126140 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Arai”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendments to the specification have overcome the objections to the specification set forth in the last Office action. The objections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 6 has overcome the objection to this claim set forth in the last Office action. The objections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 8 has overcome the objection to this claim set forth in the last Office action. The objections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 10 has overcome the objection to this claim set forth in the last Office action. The objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments have overcome the objection to claim 5.
However, the structural formulas of Compound 1-43 to Compound 1-48 of the claim have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant’s arguments of the 3rd paragraph of p. 1 through the 3rd paragraph of p. 3 of the reply filed 6 July 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Arai et al. (JP 2015-126140 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Arai”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments of the 4th paragraph of p. 3 through the 2nd paragraph of p. 7 of the reply filed 6 July 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Arai et al. (JP 2015-126140 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Arai”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the product of the current claims possesses properties not predictable based upon the cited prior art and are therefore nonobvious.
With respect to the rejections outlined below, Applicant has not compared to the closest prior art and therefore it cannot be determined if Applicant’s results are evidence of nonobviousness over the cited prior art.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
Additionally, it does not appear that the results are commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
The observed results are for only a subset of compounds of the claimed composition. It is not clear that this subset of materials is representative of the entire genus of the claimed composition.
The observed results are for only a subset of possible device structures. It is not clear that scope all the possible device structures encompassed by the current claims would produce similar results to those described by Applicant. While claims 8 and 10 limit the materials of the electron transport and hole transport layers, the specific compounds are not claimed in combination in any one claim and are not described at all in the independent claims.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments of the 3rd paragraph of p. 1 through the 3rd paragraph of p. 3 of the reply filed 6 July 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and further in view of Arai et al. (JP 2015-126140 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Arai”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments of the 4th paragraph of p. 3 through the 2nd paragraph of p. 7 of the reply filed 6 July 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and further in view of Arai et al. (JP 2015-126140 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Arai”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Je”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”), and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the product of the current claims possesses properties not predictable based upon the cited prior art and are therefore nonobvious.
With respect to the rejections outlined below, Applicant has not compared to the closest prior art and therefore it cannot be determined if Applicant’s results are evidence of nonobviousness over the cited prior art.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
Additionally, it does not appear that the results are commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
The observed results are for only a subset of compounds of the claimed composition. It is not clear that this subset of materials is representative of the entire genus of the claimed composition.
The observed results are for only a subset of possible device structures. It is not clear that scope all the possible device structures encompassed by the current claims would produce similar results to those described by Applicant. While claims 8 and 10 limit the materials of the electron transport and hole transport layers, the specific compounds are not claimed in combination in any one claim and are not described at all in the independent claims.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of Compound 1-43 to Compound 1-48 of the claim have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061077 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘077”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11: Lee ‘077 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an organic material layer provided between the first electrode and the second electrode {pp. 36-38 and Table 1: Experiment Example 1 using Compound 1 as a host material.}.
The organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer comprising the compound shown below as a host material {(pp. 36-38 and Table 1: Experiment Example 1 using Compound 1 as a host material.), (p. 30, Structure of Compound 1)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
1022
1242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The emitting material is a phosphorescent light emitting material {pp. 36-38 and Table 1: Experiment Example 1 using Compound 1 as a host material.}.
The organic layer further comprises a hole transfer layer between the anode and the light emitting layer as well as an electron transfer layer between the light emitting layer and the cathode {pp. 36-38 and Table 1: Experiment Example 1 using Compound 1 as a host material.}.
Lee ‘077 does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises an additional host material.
Lee teaches that the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device can comprise two host materials {paragraphs [0028]-[0035]}.
Lee teaches that the use of a second host material can reduce the crystallization of the first host material {paragraphs [0031]-[0032]}.
Lee teaches that the first host can be an arylamine {paragraph [0029]}. Lee teaches that the second host can be a triazine derivative {paragraph [0031]}.
It is noted that Lee does not require that one host be a hole transporting host and the other be an electron transporting host, but rather this arrangement is an option {paragraphs [0029]-[0031]}.
Kang teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the compound shown below as a host material for a phosphorescent dopant in a light emitting layer {p. 15, lines 5-7 describing Device Example 2 as well as the description of Device Example 2 in Table 1 on p. 16: The compound of synthesis example 2 is the host material of the device.), (p. 12, synthesis example 2, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
392
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kang teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Kang allow for organic light emitting devices having improved efficiency, lower driving voltage, and improved lifetime {p. 2, lines 20-24}.
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 Je by including a 2nd host in the light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the crystallization of the host material, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to use the compound of Kang shown above as the 2nd host material, based on the teaching of Lee and Kang. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements 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 use a compound known to allow for organic light emitting devices having improved efficiency, lower driving voltage, and improved lifetime, as taught by Kang.
Regarding claim 12: Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kang does not exemplify a specific ratio between the first host and the second host.
However, Lee teaches that preferably the first host and the second host are present at a ratio of about 1:3 to 3:1 {paragraph [0033]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have further modified the device of Lee ‘077 by incorporating the second host material such that the first host and the second host are present at a ratio of about 1:3 to 3:1, based on the teaching of Lee. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements 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 use the preferred host concentrations taught by Lee in order to provide a device having optimal performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061077 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘077”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma ‘526 (US 2011/0266526 A1) (hereafter “Ma ‘526”).
Regarding claim 5: Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kang does not teach that the dibenzofuran structure of Lee ‘077’s compound above has an additional fused ring.
Ma ‘526 discloses an organic light emitting element comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one organic compound layer arranged between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0030] and [0073]}.
Ma ‘526 teaches that dibenzofuran groups that comprise additional fused rings have improved stability due to increased conjugation of the group, leading to more extended pi-electron delocalization and stabilization of charge in the oxidized or reduced state of the molecule {paragraph [0058]}.
Ma ‘526 teaches that the dibenzofuran with additional fused rings can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0068]} where X can be O {paragraphs [0020], [0027], and [0029]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
484
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ma ‘526 exemplifies a limited number of benzofuran structures with additional fused rings with the same number of aromatic ring atoms.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee ‘077’s compound shown above by adding a fused benzene ring to the triazine substituted benzene ring of the dibenzofuran skeleton of the compound such that the modified skeleton had the structure of Ma ‘526 shown above, based on the teachings of Ma ‘526. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the stability of the group by increasing the conjugation of the group, as taught by Ma ‘526.
Furthermore, Ma ‘526 exemplifies a limited number of benzofuran structures with additional fused rings with the same number of aromatic ring atoms. Therefore, selecting one of the structures shown above would have been choosing one option from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061077 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘077”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai et al. (JP 2015-126140 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Arai”).
Regarding claims 7-8: Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Je does not teach that the material of the electron transfer layer has the structure of the instant Formula 3.
Arai teaches materials useful in electron transporting layers of organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0012] and [0047]}. The material includes a triazine derivative and an organometallic compound {paragraphs [0012] and [0047]}. The triazine derivative can have the structure shown below {paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and [0078]-[0079]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
384
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Arai teaches that the electron transport layer material of Arai allows for organic light emitting devices having good durability and good luminescence {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Lee ‘077 by using the electron transport layer material of Arai described above (including the triazine derivative shown above) as the material of the electron transfer layer, based on the teaching of Arai. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements 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 use a material known to allow for organic light emitting devices having good durability and good luminescence, as taught by Arai.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061077 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘077”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kang et al. (KR 10-2019-0002206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”).
Regarding claims 9-10: Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee ‘077 does not teach that the material of the hole transfer layer has the structure of the instant Formula 4.
Montenegro teaches materials useful in electron transporting layers of organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0004] and [0118]-[0119]}. The materials include the compound having the structure shown below {paragraph [0093] and pp. 23 and 198, the compound shown below}.
PNG
media_image5.png
518
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Montenegro teaches that the hole transport layer materials of Montenegro have high thermal stability and allow for organic light emitting devices having good durability, low driving voltage, and good efficiency {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Lee ‘077 by using the hole transport layer material of Montenegro described above as the material of the hole transfer layer, based on the teaching of Montenegro. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements 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 use a material having good thermal stability known to allow for organic light emitting devices having good durability, low driving voltage, and good efficiency, as taught by Montenegro.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061077 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘077”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, and 11: Lee ‘077 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an organic material layer provided between the first electrode and the second electrode {pp. 36-38 and Table 1: Experiment Example 1 using Compound 1 as a host material.}.
The organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer comprising the compound shown below as a host material {(pp. 36-38 and Table 1: Experiment Example 1 using Compound 1 as a host material.), (p. 30, Structure of Compound 1)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
1022
1242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The emitting material is a phosphorescent light emitting material {pp. 36-38 and Table 1: Experiment Example 1 using Compound 1 as a host material.}.
The organic layer further comprises a hole transfer layer between the anode and the light emitting layer as well as an electron transfer layer between the light emitting layer and the cathode {pp. 36-38 and Table 1: Experiment Example 1 using Compound 1 as a host material.}.
Lee ‘077 does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises an additional host material.
Lee teaches that the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device can comprise two host materials {paragraphs [0028]-[0035]}.
Lee teaches that the use of a second host material can reduce the crystallization of the first host material {paragraphs [0031]-[0032]}.
Lee teaches that the first host can be an arylamine {paragraph [0029]}. Lee teaches that the second host can be a triazine derivative {paragraph [0031]}.
It is noted that Lee does not require that one host be a hole transporting host and the other be an electron transporting host, but rather this arrangement is an option {paragraphs [0029]-[0031]}.
Kim teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the compound shown below as a host material for a phosphorescent dopant in a light emitting layer {paragraph [0177] and pp. 123-124}.
PNG
media_image6.png
476
374
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Kim allow for organic light emitting devices having improved efficiency and improved lifetime {paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0186]}.
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 Lee ‘077 by including a 2nd host in the light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the crystallization of the host material, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to use the compound of Kim shown above as the 2nd host material, based on the teaching of Lee and Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements 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 use a compound known to allow for organic light emitting devices having improved efficiency, lower driving voltage, and improved lifetime, as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 12: Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kim does not exemplify a specific ratio between the first host and the second host.
However, Lee teaches that preferably the first host and the second host are present at a ratio of about 1:3 to 3:1 {paragraph [0033]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have further modified the device of Lee ‘077 by incorporating the second host material such that the first host and the second host are present at a ratio of about 1:3 to 3:1, based on the teaching of Lee. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements 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 use the preferred host concentrations taught by Lee in order to provide a device having optimal performance.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061077 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘077”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai et al. (JP 2015-126140 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Arai”).
Regarding claims 7-8: Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee ‘077 does not teach that the material of the electron transfer layer has the structure of the instant Formula 3.
Arai teaches materials useful in electron transporting layers of organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0012] and [0047]}. The material includes a triazine derivative and an organometallic compound {paragraphs [0012] and [0047]}. The triazine derivative can have the structure shown below {paragraphs [0021]-[0022] and [0078]-[0079]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
384
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Arai teaches that the electron transport layer material of Arai allows for organic light emitting devices having good durability and good luminescence {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Lee ‘077 by using the electron transport layer material of Arai described above (including the triazine derivative shown above) as the material of the electron transfer layer, based on the teaching of Arai. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements 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 use a material known to allow for organic light emitting devices having good durability and good luminescence, as taught by Arai.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2018-0061077 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘077”) in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0199915 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”).
Regarding claims 9-10: Lee ‘077 as modified by Lee and Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee ‘077 does not teach that the material of the hole transfer layer has the structure of the instant Formula 4.
Montenegro teaches materials useful in electron transporting layers of organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0004] and [0118]-[0119]}. The materials include the compound having the structure shown below {paragraph [0093] and pp. 23 and 198, the compound shown below}.
PNG
media_image5.png
518
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Montenegro teaches that the hole transport layer materials of Montenegro have high thermal stability and allow for organic light emitting devices having good durability, low driving voltage, and good efficiency {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Lee by using the hole transport layer material of Montenegro described above as the material of the hole transfer layer, based on the teaching of Montenegro. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements 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 use a material having good thermal stability known to allow for organic light emitting devices having good durability, low driving voltage, and good efficiency, as taught by Montenegro.
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 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
Prosecution Insights