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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0046235, filed on 04/07/2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. (US 2020/0111969 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 06/27/2023, hereafter “No”) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2011/0127908 A1, hereafter “Hashimoto”).
Regarding Claims 1–16, No teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 24 including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transfer layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transfer layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0209] – [0210]. The light emitting layer comprises Compound 264 and Compound 2-31 as a host [Table 19]. Compound 264 reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
192
251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
160
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
265
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
260
259
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A2 is represented by Structural Formula 1,
A1, A3, and A4 are each hydrogen,
B4 is represented by Structural Formula 2,
B1 to B3 are each hydrogen,
n1 and n2 are each 0, so R1 and R2 are not present,
n3, n4, and n5 are 0, so L1, L2, and L3 are not present,
R3 is a C6 aryl group (phenyl),
n7 is 0, so R4 is not present,
n6 is 0, so L4 is not present.
However, Ar1 is not present in Compound 264, which is not permitted by Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1.
Compound 264 is represented by No’s Chemical Formula 7 (shown below) [0060], wherein
PNG
media_image5.png
68
120
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
100
128
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[0064]. No teaches R12 and R14 may be a substituted heteroaryl group [0111]. No further defines that R12 and R14 may be a phenyl group or a dibenzofuran group [0112]. Additionally, No teaches Compound 17 wherein R12 and R14 are each a phenyl group and R12 is substituted with a phenyl (shown below) [0140].
PNG
media_image7.png
299
271
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
249
332
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, No does not explicitly disclose a compound like Compound 264 wherein the dibenzofuran is substituted with a phenyl.
Hashimoto teaches compounds which are substituted by a phenyl group [abstract]. Hashimoto teaches a phenyl substituent is strongly affected by steric repulsion of substituents or hydrogen atoms on both sides. Therefore, the phenyl substituent may be introduced in such a manner that the plane including the phenyl substituent is nearly perpendicular to the plane of the core molecule, therefore inhibiting stacking effects [0033]. Hashimoto further teaches that lowing the stacking properties of a molecule by including a phenyl substituent has three effects: (i) it lowers crystallinity therefore improving stability of a film, (ii) it suppresses concentration quenching therefore improving emission efficiency, and (iii) it improves sublimation properties [0034] – [0037].
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 modify Compound 264 by adding a phenyl substituent to the dibenzofuran, based on the teaching of No. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve sublimation properties, improve film stability, and improve emission efficiency, as taught by Hashimoto.
Per Claim 1, Example 24, as described above, comprising the modified version of Compound 264 (hereafter “Modified 264”) reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
192
251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
160
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
265
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
248
414
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A2 is represented by Structural Formula 1,
A1, A3, and A4 are each hydrogen,
B4 is represented by Structural Formula 2,
B1 to B3 are each hydrogen,
n1 and n2 are each 0, so R1 and R2 are not present,
n3, n4, and n5 are 0, so L1, L2, and L3 are not present,
R3 is a C6 aryl group (phenyl),
n7 is 0, so R4 is not present,
n6 is 0, so L4 is not present,
Ar1 is a C6 aryl group (phenyl).
Per Claim 2, Modified 264 reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-1 (shown below), wherein A1 to A4, B1 to B4, L1 to L4, Y1 to Y3, R3, R4, n3 to n7, and Ar1 have the same definitions as in Chemical Formula 1.
PNG
media_image10.png
432
470
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
248
414
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 3, Modified 264 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Structural Formula 2 is represented by Structural Formula 2-4 (shown below), wherein L1 to L4, X1, Y1 to Y3, R3, R4, n3 to n7, and Ar1 have the same definition as in Chemical Formula 1.
PNG
media_image11.png
281
343
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
248
414
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 4, Modified 264 does not include deuterium as a substituent.
Per Claim 5, Modified 264 is identical to Applicant’s Compound 1-93 (shown below)
PNG
media_image12.png
249
188
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
248
414
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 6–8, Example 24, as described above, includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transfer layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transfer layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises Modified 264 as a host material [0209] – [0210].
Per Claims 9 and 14–15, Example 24, as described above, includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transfer layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transfer layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0209] – [0210]. The light emitting layer comprises Modified 264 and Compound 2-31 [Table 19]. Compound 2-31 reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image13.png
243
530
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
246
273
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein:
L5 and L7 are each a C6 arylene group (phenylene), while n8 and n10 are each 1,
n9 is 0, so L6 is not present,
Ar2 and Ar3 are each a C6 aryl group (phenyl),
n11 and n12 are each 0, so R5 and R6 are not present.
Per Claim 10, Ar2 and Ar3 are each represented by Structural Formula 4 in Compound 2-31 (shown below), wherein n21 is 0, so L11 is not present, and Ar6 is a C6 aryl group (phenyl). Ar4 and Ar5 are not present since Compound 2-31 is not represented by Chemical Formula 3.
PNG
media_image15.png
106
196
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
246
273
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 11, Compound 2-31 does not include deuterium as a substituent.
Per Claim 12, Compound 2-31 is identical to Applicant’s Compound 2-27 (shown below).
PNG
media_image16.png
244
238
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
246
273
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 13, Compound 2-31 is not represented by Chemical Formula 3. Therefore, Applicant’s further limitation of Chemical Formula 3 does not apply to Compound 2-31.
Per Claim 16, Example 24, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified 264 and Compound 2-31 have a weight ratio of 1:2 [Table 19].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al. (US 2021/0184131 A1, hereafter “Jung”) teaches compounds which nearly reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. However, they are missing Ar1 similar to Compound 264 above. The compound taught by Jung also comprise deuterium atoms. For example, Compound 1 is shown below [pg. 36].
PNG
media_image17.png
316
273
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Mun et al. (US 2022/0367818 A1, hereafter “Mun”) discloses Compound 8-8 [pg. 116] which nearly reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 (shown below). However, Chemical Formula 1 requires a dibenzofuran instead of a dibenzothiophene.
PNG
media_image18.png
285
324
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights