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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the resolution of the chemical structure formulae on pages 20-21, 24-25, 44, and 77 are of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 it is suggested that the comma after "device" and before "comprising" be removed for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 8, and 11 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 claims 3, 8, and 11 each recites "* is a linking point" at the end of the claim. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear to what * is a linking point.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to read * is a linking point to the remainder of the compound.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. US-20150236262-A1 (hereinafter "Cho") in view of Ryu et al. US-20150280136-A1 (hereinafter "Ryu").
Regarding claims 1-8, 10, and 12, Cho teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an organic layer including an emission layer between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer includes at least one compound selected from carbazole-based compounds represented by Formula 1, and at least one compound selected from heterocyclic compounds represented by Formulae 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, and 10E (¶ [0009]). Cho teaches wherein the organic layer may further include a hole transport region disposed between the first electrode and the emission layer (¶ [0069]), which may be a multi-layered structure (¶ [0071]) and may include a hole transport layer (¶ [0070]). Cho teaches examples of the carbazole-based compounds represented by Formula 1 in paragraph [0255] including compound 104A
PNG
media_image1.png
401
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 30). Cho teaches examples of the heterocyclic compound represented by one of Formula 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, or 10E in paragraph [0255] including compound 155
PNG
media_image2.png
359
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 50) and compound 162
PNG
media_image3.png
239
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 51).
Cho does not specifically teach wherein the device comprises a hole auxiliary layer between the emission layer and the hole transport layer, and wherein the hole auxiliary layer comprises a claimed third compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 5 and Chemical Formula 6. However, Cho teaches that the hole transport region may include an amine-containing compound represented by a Formula 201 (¶ [0077]).
Ryu teaches an organic optoelectronic device comprising a hole transport layer contacting the emission layer, among a plurality of hole transport layers, including a compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2 or 3, and Chemical Formula 4 and an additional hole transport layer not contacting the emission layer including a compound represented by Chemical Formula B-1 (¶ [0008]). Ryu teaches examples of the compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2 or 3, and Chemical Formula 4 in paragraph [0168] including for example A-1
PNG
media_image4.png
256
395
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 11), A-13
PNG
media_image5.png
159
309
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 13), C-1
PNG
media_image6.png
251
310
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 37), and C-2
PNG
media_image7.png
358
405
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 37). Ryu teaches that the plurality of hole transport layers results in an organic optoelectronic device having improved life-span characteristics, and high luminous efficiency at a low driving voltage (¶ [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the hole transport materials of Ryu into the hole transport region of the device of Cho, based on the teaching of Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve life-span characteristics, and obtain high luminous efficiency at a low driving voltage, as taught by Ryu.
The modified device of Cho in view of Ryu displays light and therefore is considered a display device. The hole transport layer contacting the emission layer is in support or hole transport to the emission layer and is therefore considered a hole auxiliary layer.
The heterocyclic compound of Cho is a first compound represented by the claimed Formula 1. The carbazole-based compound of Cho is a second compound represented by the claimed Formula 2. The compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2 or 3, and Chemical Formula 4 of Ryu is a third compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 5 and Chemical Formula 6. Compound C-1 of Ryu corresponds to the claimed compound D-51.
Therefore, the modified device of Cho in view of Ryu meets claims 1-8, 10, and 12.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Cho in view of Ryu teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ryu does not exemplify a compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2 or 3, and Chemical Formula 4 that meets the claimed compound of Chemical Formula 5A-4. However, the compounds discussed above are each a positional isomer of the claimed compound of Chemical Formula 5A-4 wherein the group of Ryu's Chemical Formula 2 or 3 is bonded to Ryu's Chemical Formula 1 at a different set of *.
Given the general formula and teachings of Ryu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound of Ryu wherein the group of Ryu's Chemical Formula 2 or 3 is bonded to Ryu's Chemical Formula 1 at a different set of *. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formulae of Ryu in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in a hole transport layer of the device of Cho in view of Ryu and possess the properties taught by Cho and Ryu. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP § 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP § 2144.09 II.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee et al. US-20120112174-A1 recites a compound for an organic optoelectronic device, the compound including moieties represented by the following Chemical Formula 1; Chemical Formula 4; and one of Chemical Formulae 2 and 3 (¶ [0010]) as a hole transport material or a hole injection material for an organic light emitting diode (¶ [0026]), and recites examples including compound A-18
PNG
media_image8.png
172
325
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights