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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The following structural formulas have poor resolution and are difficult to read: the structural formulas in lines 1-3 of p. 12; the structural formulas on pp. 28-47; the structural formulas on pp. 54-57; the structural formulas on pp. 65-68; the structural formulas on pp. 72-76; the structural formulas in line 1 of p. 84; the 3rd structural formula in line 16 of p. 85; the structural formulas in line 2 of p. 87 (synthesis of Compound 1-136); the structural formulas in line 2 of p. 89 (synthesis of Compound 1-177); the structural formulas in line 2 of p. 92 (synthesis of Compound 1-201); the structural formulas in line 2 of p. 89 (synthesis of Compound 1-177); the structural formulas in line 2 of p. 94 (synthesis of Compound 1-229); the structural formulas in line 2 of p. 97 (synthesis of Compound 1-236); the structural formulas of the 3rd column of Table 9; the structural formulas in line 2 of p. 99 (synthesis of Compound 1-266); the structural formulas of the 3rd column of Table 10; the structural formulas in line 2 of p. 101 (synthesis of Compound 1-263); the structural formulas of the 3rd columns of Tables 11-16; and the structural formulas describing the synthesis Compounds 1-301, 1-327, 1-345, 1-422, 1-430, 2-5, 2-67, and 3-57.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of the claim have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of the claim have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of the claim have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of the claim have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-5 and 11-12 are rejected 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”).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 11: Je 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 {p. 22, line 19 through p. 23, line 3}.
The organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer comprising the compound shown below as a host material {(p. 22, line 19 through p. 23, line 3: The host material of Example 1 is Compound 7.), (p. 6, structure of Compound 7)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The emitting material is a phosphorescent light emitting material {p. 22, line 19 through p. 23, line 3}.
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 {p. 22, line 19 through p. 23, line 3}.
Je 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: Je as modified by Lee and Kang teaches all of the features with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
Je 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 Je 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 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”) 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: Je 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_image3.png
384
278
media_image3.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 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 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”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”).
Regarding claims 9-10: Je 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 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_image4.png
518
402
media_image4.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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected 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”).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 11: Je 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 {p. 22, line 19 through p. 23, line 3}.
The organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer comprising the compound shown below as a host material {(p. 22, line 19 through p. 23, line 3: The host material of Example 1 is Compound 7.), (p. 6, structure of Compound 7)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The emitting material is a phosphorescent light emitting material {p. 22, line 19 through p. 23, line 3}.
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 {p. 22, line 19 through p. 23, line 3}.
Je 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_image5.png
476
374
media_image5.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 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 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: Je as modified by Lee and Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
Je 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 Je 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 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”) 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: Je as modified by Lee and Kim 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_image3.png
384
278
media_image3.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 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 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”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montenegro et al. (US 2018/0019405 A1) (hereafter “Montenegro”).
Regarding claims 9-10: Je as modified by Lee and Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Je 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_image4.png
518
402
media_image4.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
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