DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “R1 is each independently hydrogen or deuterium; and a is an integer of 0 to 7;” is indefinite. Since R1 can be hydrogen it is unclear what the group is present when a is less than 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the group attached to the dibenzofuran group to be hydrogen was there is no R1 group present, but since R1 can be hydrogen it is unclear the structure of the compound when a R1 group is not present. Further clarification is needed.
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (KR 2017-0096770) (hereafter “Ha”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, in view of Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-9, Ha teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (pages 139, 164, and 165 of the machine translation) (claim 1). Ha teaches that the light emitting layer can comprise a host material and a dopant, which can be a fluorescent material or a phosphorescent material and does not limit the material (page 142 of the machine translation) (claim 1). Ha teaches that a compound that meets the following formula can be used in the light emitting layer,
PNG
media_image1.png
187
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where X can be O and one of R4 and R5 is
PNG
media_image2.png
63
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(pages 18 and 139 of the machine translation) (claims 6-9). Ha teaches that the compounds can be substituted with deuterium groups (pages 21-25 of the machine translation) (claims 6-8). Ha teaches that following compounds that meet the aforementioned formula,
PNG
media_image3.png
157
150
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
126
107
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image5.png
112
222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
are a few examples and are the same as claimed by the applicant (pages 129-139 of the machine translation) (claim 9).
Ha does not specifically teach where the compound is used a host material with a co-host in the electroluminescent device.
Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [263]-[265]) (claim 1). Lee teaches that the light emitting layer comprises two host materials and a phosphorescent dopant (paragraph [265]) (claim 1). Lee teaches that one host can meet the following formula,
PNG
media_image6.png
81
208
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which is similar to the formula and compounds of Ha (paragraph [45]). Lee teaches that the second host meets the following formula,
PNG
media_image7.png
132
190
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, where X3 can be O, and the compound can be substituted with deuterium groups (paragraphs [15]-[33] and [77]-[79]) (claims 2-5). Lee teaches the following compounds that meet the formula for the second host,
PNG
media_image8.png
86
75
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
91
98
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image10.png
100
92
media_image10.png
Greyscale
are a few examples and are claimed by the applicant (paragraph [113]) (claim 5). Lee teaches that when these second host material are present with arylamine compound as the first host material for a phosphorescent dopant the device displays high efficiency and lifetime (paragraph [272]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ha, so the compounds of Ha where used a host material and mixed with the second host material of Lee,
PNG
media_image8.png
86
75
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
91
98
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image10.png
100
92
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, for a phosphorescent dopant. The motivation as taught by Lee would have been to make an electroluminescent device with high efficiency and lifetime. The Office points out that Lee teaches that the second host material can be used with compounds similar to the formula and compounds of Ha; therefore, it would have been obvious to use a second host in the device of Ha.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al. (US 2018/0186764) teaches naphthobenzofuran compounds substituted with amine group for use in electroluminescent devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights