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
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. 16/285,617, filed on 26 February 2019.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lui et al. (US 2019/0341553 A1) (hereafter “Lui”).
It is noted that this reference is the pre-grant publication of related application number 16/269,700. Each of the pending claims comprises matter not disclosed in the ‘700 application—the optional substitution of the biphenylene linking group with substituents represented by the instant R18 and/or R19. Furthermore, this feature is not present in the foreign priority documents. Thus, each of the currently pending claims cannot claim the priority date of the related application 16/269,700 and cannot claim the priority date of the foreign priority documents. Therefore, the pre-grant publication of related application number 16/269,700 is prior art.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 16: Lui discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other {paragraphs [87]-[89]}.
The organic optoelectronic device comprises an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer including a light-emitting layer {paragraphs [87]-[89]}.
The light emitting layer comprises the compounds shown below as host materials {(paragraphs [0200]-[0201] and Table 8: Example 8), (p. 9, Structure of Compound [A-21]), (p. 44, Structure of Compound [B-99])}.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
874
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant compound [A-21].
A light emitting layer comprising the compounds shown above is a composition.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Galan et al. (WO 2020/157204 A1) (hereafter “Galan”).
Each of the pending claims comprises matter not disclosed in the related applications to the instant application—the optional substitution of the biphenylene linking group with substituents represented by the instant R18 and/or R19. Furthermore, this feature is not present in the foreign priority documents. Thus, each of the currently pending claims cannot claim the priority date of the related applications and cannot claim the priority date of the foreign priority documents.
Regarding claims 1-7: Galan teaches the compound shown below that is useful as a material for an organic light emitting device {(p. 2, lines 5-6: The disclosure includes a composition comprising formula 1.), (p. 22, final 2 lines: The compounds having the structure of formula 1 are exemplified by Compounds G1 to G31.), (p. 24, Compound G8 shown below)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
725
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where the compound shown above has the structure of the instant Compound [A-21].
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al. (US 2019/0341553 A1) (hereafter “Lui”).
Regarding claims 13-15: Lui teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 8, as outlined above.
Lui does not teach a specific device comprising a compound that is a combination of the current Chemical Formula 3 and Chemical Formula 4.
However, Lui does teach that compounds that are a combination of the current Chemical Formula 3 and Chemical Formula 4 can optionally be used as host materials for the devices of Lui in alternative to compounds having the structure of Chemical Formula 2 of Lui {paragraphs [0016]-[0021], [0067]-[0072], and [0124]}.
Lui exemplifies the compound shown below as a compound that is a combination of the current Chemical Formula 3 and Chemical Formula 4 {(paragraphs [0200]-[0201] and Table 9: Example Device 9), (p. 52, structure of compound C-4)}.
PNG
media_image4.png
578
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 Lui by using the compound C-4 of Lui shown above as the host material in place of the compound B-99, based on the teaching of Lui. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of Compound C-4 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified second compounds of Lui used as host materials), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce organic light-emitting devices.
Claims 8-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galan et al. (WO 2020/157204 A1) (hereafter “Galan”) as applied to claims 1 and 1 above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Tominaga et al. (JP 2003-133075 – machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tominaga”).
Regarding claims 8-12 and 16: Galan teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Claim 8 differs from claim 1 in that the compound of claim 1 is comprised in a composition for an organic light emitting device.
Galan does not exemplify a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the compound shown above.
However, Galan teaches an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other {(The 1st paragraph of p. 48 as well as the 1st and 5th paragraphs of p. 49 all of which describing Fig. 4.), (The final paragraph of p. 38 through p. 47 generally describe the organic optoelectronic device of the disclosure.)}.
The organic optoelectronic device comprises an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer including a light-emitting layer {Fig. 4}.
Additionally, Galan teaches that the compound shown above can be comprised in the light emitting layer a host material for a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant {(final paragraph of p. 42: The host material of the light-emitting layer has the structure of formula 1 of Galan.), (2nd from the last paragraph of p. 44 through the 2nd paragraph of p. 45: The light-emitting dopant can be a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant.), (Final paragraph of p. 22: The compounds having the structure of formula 1 of Galan are exemplified by compound G1 to G31.)}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified Galan’s Compound G8 by using it as a host material of the light-emitting layer of the optoelectronic device of Galan described above, based on the teaching of Galan. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Galan’s Compound G8 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Galan does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host material.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0211] and [0227]: The electron transporting host can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative.)}.
The Examiner is equating the modified compound of Zheng shown above—which is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative—with the second host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Galan by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516.
Galaon as modified by Kondakova ‘516 does not teach that the hole transporting host is a compound having the structure of the instant Formula 2.
As outlined above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the hole transporting host can be a carbazole derivative.
Tominaga teaches an organic electroluminescent device {paragraph [0018]}. The light-emitting comprises the carbazole derivative shown below as a host material {(paragraph [0018]), (p. 6, ¶ [0025]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton can be used as a hole transporting material or as a host material.), (p. 8, ¶ [0034]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton is exemplified by the compounds on pp. 5-6.), (p. 6, structure in upper right), (paragraphs [0020] and [0039]; the luminescent material can be a phosphorescent material, which can be an iridium complex)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Tominaga’s Host Material)]
PNG
media_image5.png
202
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore Tominaga’s host material shown above was a known carbazole derivative host material at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, Tominaga teaches that the host materials of Tominaga provide organic light-emitting devices with high durability, high efficiency, and high color purity {paragraphs [0007] and [0058]}.
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 optoelectric device of Galan by substituting the generalized carbazole derivative hole transport host of Kondakova ‘516 with Tominaga’s host material, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516 and Tominaga. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Tominaga’s host material has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2 where: m is 0; R8 to R10 are hydrogen; m is 0; L1 is a single bond; Y1 is unsubstituted biphenyl; L2 is a single bond; Y2 is a unsubstituted biphenyl. Tominaga’s host material has the structure of the instant C-8 where: *-L1Y1 is B-2; *-L2Y2 is B-2.
A light emitting layer comprising two host material and a light emitting material is a composition.
Claims 8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galan et al. (WO 2020/157204 A1) (hereafter “Galan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and Yu et al. (US 2012/0273764 A1) (hereafter “Yu”) and as evidenced by Aziz et al. (US 2006/0022590 A1) (hereafter “Aziz”).
Regarding claims 8 and 13-16: Galan teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Claim 8 differs from claim 1 in that the compound of claim 1 is comprised in a composition for an organic light emitting device.
Galan does not exemplify a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the compound shown above.
However, Galan teaches an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other {(The 1st paragraph of p. 48 as well as the 1st and 5th paragraphs of p. 49 all of which describing Fig. 4.), (The final paragraph of p. 38 through p. 47 generally describe the organic optoelectronic device of the disclosure.)}.
The organic optoelectronic device comprises an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer including a light-emitting layer {Fig. 4}.
Additionally, Galan teaches that the compound shown above can be comprised in the light emitting layer a host material for a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant {(final paragraph of p. 42: The host material of the light-emitting layer has the structure of formula 1 of Galan.), (2nd from the last paragraph of p. 44 through the 2nd paragraph of p. 45: The light-emitting dopant can be a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant.), (Final paragraph of p. 22: The compounds having the structure of formula 1 of Galan are exemplified by compound G1 to G31.)}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified Galan’s Compound G8 by using it as a host material of the light-emitting layer of the optoelectronic device of Galan described above, based on the teaching of Galan. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Galan’s Compound G8 would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Galan does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host material.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material {paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0211] and [0227]: The electron transporting host can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative.)}.
The Examiner is equating the modified compound of Zheng above—which is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative—with the second host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Galan by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516.
Galan as modified by Kondakova ‘516 does not teach that the hole transporting host is a compound having the structure of a combination of the instant Formulas 3 and 4.
As outlined above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the first host is a hole transporting host.
Aziz teaches that indolocarbazole derivatives are hole transporting materials {paragraph [0083]}.
Lee teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {abstract, paragraphs [0008], [0037]-[0040], and [0056]-[0057]}.
The organic layer comprises an emissive layer which can comprise the compound shown below as a host material along with a phosphorescent dopant {(paragraph [0008]: The organic layer comprises an emissive layer, which comprises a first host having the structure if Lee's formula 1.), (paragraph [0035]: The compounds having the structure of Lee's formula 1 are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 6-73.), (p.9, compound C-23), (paragraphs [0008] and [0038]-[0041] the emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emissive dopant.)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
685
1105
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Lee’s Compound C-23)]
Therefore at the time the invention was effectively filed, Lee’s Compound C-23 was a known hole transporting host material.
Lee teaches that Lee’s Compound C-23 is used as a first host material of a light emitting layer {paragraphs [0008]-[0013]}. Lee teaches that the second host material has the structure of Lee’s formula 2 {paragraph [0008]}. Kim’s Formula 1-17 has the structure of Lee’s formula 2 {paragraphs [0014]-[0018]}.
Lee teaches that organic light emitting devices comprising the host mixture has low driving voltage, high color purity, good efficiency and long lifetime {paragraph [0019]}.
Furthermore, Yu teaches that Lee’s Compound C-23 was a known host material component for an organic light emitting device {(paragraphs [0137]-[0145]: Example 1 comprises the compound of Prep. Ex. 1.), (paragraphs [0116]-[0120]: Prep. Ex. 1 produces a compound having the structure of Lee’s Compound C-23.)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant claims to have further modified the device of Galan by including Lee’s Compound 23 as the hole transporting host in the emissive layer as a substitution for the generalized hole transporting host of Kondakova ‘516, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516, Aziz, Lee, and Yu. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Compound C-23 of Lee is a compound consisting of a combination of a moiety represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 3 and a moiety represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 4 where: L3 and L4 are each a single bond; Y3 and Y4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group); R12 to R15 are each hydrogen; in each case, La is a single bond, and Rb is hydrogen.
A light emitting layer comprising two host material and a light emitting material is a composition.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/110958 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 103435597—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zheng”) and Park et al. (US 2017/0213968 A1) (hereafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-7: Kim discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other {paragraphs [87]-[89]}.
The organic optoelectronic device comprises an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer including a light-emitting layer {paragraphs [87]-[89]}.
The light emitting layer comprises the compound shown below {(paragraphs [90]-[91]: The light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of the present invention may include a host material, and may include the compound of Formula 1 as a host material.), (paragraph [64]: The compounds having the structure of formula 1 are exemplified by compounds having the formulas (1-1) through (7-23).), (paragraph [65]: The compound having the formula 1-21)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Kim’s Formula 1-21)]
PNG
media_image7.png
631
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above does not have the structure of the instant Chemical Formula I because it comprises the instant R4 as phenyl. Kim does not exemplify a compound similar to Kim’s Formula 1-21 in which the instant R4 is hydrogen.
While none of the exemplified compounds of Kim comprise the instant R4 as hydrogen, the reference does describe that the compound of Kim shown above has the structure of Kim’s Formula 1 {(paragraphs [90]-[91]: The light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of the present invention may include a host material, and may include the compound of Formula 1 as a host material.), (paragraph [64]: The compounds having the structure of formula 1 are exemplified by compounds having the formulas (1-1) through (7-23).), (paragraph [65]: The compound having the formula 1-17)}.
Kim’s Formula 1-21 comprises L2 and Ar2 of Kim’s Formula 1 (shown below) as a single bond and the unsubstituted phenyl group (respectively) that is bonded to the carbazole structure {paragraphs [10]-[16]}.
PNG
media_image8.png
455
734
media_image8.png
Greyscale
While not exemplified by the reference in a specific compound, Kim teaches that L2 and Ar2 of Kim’s Formula 1 can also be a single bond and a hydrogen (respectively) {paragraphs [10]-[16]}.
Zheng discloses the compound shown below {(p. 6, 6th paragraph: The triazine compounds of the disclosure have the structure of Formula I of the reference.), (p. 5, final paragraph: The triazine compounds of the disclosure of Zheng are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 6-7.), (p. 6, Compound I5)}.
PNG
media_image9.png
771
1488
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compound can be used as the host material of the light-emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device {(p. 8, 8th paragraph: An organic optoelectronic device.), (p. 9, 6th paragraph: The triazine derivative the disclosure can be used as a host material.)}.
As shown in the compound above, the carbazole skeleton comprises only hydrogen atoms on the benzene rings. Furthermore, Zheng teaches that the substituents of the carbazole skeleton can alternatively be aryl groups {p. 2, 6th–8th paragraphs}. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that either a hydrogen atom or a phenyl group could be used as substituents on a carbazole structure of a compound similar in structure to Kim’s Compound 1-21.
Park teaches an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other, wherein the organic optoelectronic device comprises an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer including a light-emitting layer {paragraph [0008]}.
Park teaches that the 2nd host of the light-emitting layer can be either of the compounds shown below {(p. 106, paragraph [0049]: The compounds that can be the 2nd host include the compounds on pp. 106–191), (p. 140, Compound H2-195), (p. 141, Compound H2-198)}.
PNG
media_image10.png
825
713
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
822
961
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that either a hydrogen atom or a phenyl group could be used as substituents on a carbazole structure of a compound similar in structure to Kim’s Compound 1-21.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim’s Compound 1-21 by substituting the phenyl group substituent on the carbazole structure with a hydrogen, based on the teaching of Kim, Zheng, and Park. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of hydrogen would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, based on the teaching of Kim, Zheng, and Park. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum substituent structures when producing compounds to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
The resultant compound has the structure of the instant Compound [A-32].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/110958 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 103435597—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zheng”) and Park et al. (US 2017/0213968 A1) (hereafter “Park”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (“Tuning the Photophysical Properties and Energy Levels by Linking Spacer and Topology between the Benzimidazole and Carbazole Units: Bipolar Host for Highly Efficient Phosphorescent OLEDs”, 2010, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 114, pp. 5193-5198.) (hereafter “Gong”), Boerner (US 2006/0078757 A1) (hereafter “Boerner”), and Kwong et al. (US 2006/0088728 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”).
Regarding claim 2: Kim as modified by Zheng and Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim does not exemplify a compound having the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 1-2, because Kim’s Formula 1-21 comprises two m-phenylene linkers rather than one m-phenylene linker bonded directly to the carbazolyl group and a p-phenylene linker bonded to the triazine moiety.
However, Kim further teaches the compounds shown below {(paragraph [64]: The compounds having the structure of formula 1 are exemplified by compounds having the formulas (1-1) through (7-23).), (paragraph [65]: The compounds having the formulas 1-8 and 1-9)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Kim’s Formula 1-9)][AltContent: textbox (Kim’s Formula 1-8)]
PNG
media_image12.png
579
1084
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Kim’s Formula 1-8 comprises two m-phenylene linkers between the carbazolyl group and the triazinyl group (as circled above) just as in Kim’s Formula 1-21. However, Kim’s Formula 1-9 comprises one m-phenylene linker bonded directly to the carbazolyl group and a p-phenylene linker bonded to the triazine moiety (as boxed above). The only difference between Kim’s Formula 1-8 and Kim’s Formula 1-9 is the change in the linker groups described above.
Therefore, in the compounds of Kim, the linker groups between the carbazolyl group and the triazinyl group can either comprise two m-phenylene linkers or one m-phenylene linker bonded directly to the carbazolyl group and a p-phenylene linker bonded to the triazine moiety.
Gong teaches that the structure of the linking spacer changes the thermal properties, photophysical properties of a compound {p. 5198, 1st col., 2nd paragraph}. Divalent phenylene linkers with bonds that are para to each other impart higher glass transition temperatures {(p. 5195, 2nd col., 1st paragraph), (Table 1, Compound 2 vs. Compound 3)}. Gong teaches that higher glass transition temperatures prevents crystallization of a host material and has higher morphological stability {p. 5195, 2nd col., 1st paragraph}. Divalent phenylene linkers with bonds that are meta to each other impart higher triplet energies {p. 5196, 1st col., 2nd paragraph; Compound 3 has a higher triplet energy than Compound 2, the only difference being the metal-phenylene linkers}. Gong teaches that higher triplet energies allow a host material to function with higher triplet energy light-emitting materials {p. 5196, 1st col., 2nd paragraph}.
Boerner teaches that phenylene linkers with meta bonding have higher triplet energies than phenylene linkers with para bonding because of the decreased conjugation associated with the meta bonded phenylene linker {paragraphs [0063]-[0065]}.
Kwong teaches that increasing conjugation, as in the case of para bonding on a phenylene linker as outlined above, increases compound stability {paragraph [0062]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Kim’s Formula 1-21 to keep the phenylene linker closest to the carbazolyl group a meta-bonded phenylene linker while changing the phenylene linker nearest to the triazinyl group para-bonded, based on the teachings of Kim, Gong, Boerner, and Kwong. The modification would have been replacing one known element with another known element, as taught by Kim. The motivation for making the change would have been to increase the glass transition temperature and overall stability of the compound by making the phenylene linker nearest the triazinyl group para-bonded, based on the teaching of Gong and Kwong, while balancing the triplet energy of the compound by keeping the phenylene linker nearest to the carbazolyl group meta-bonded, as taught by Gong et al. and Boerner.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to select the phenylene linker closest to the triazinyl group to be para-bonded, because it would have been choosing one out of two possibilities for having one meta-bonded phenylene linker and one para-bonded phenylene linker.
Claims 8-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/110958 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 103435597—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zheng”) and Park et al. (US 2017/0213968 A1) (hereafter “Park”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Tominaga et al. (JP 2003-133075 – machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tominaga”).
Regarding claims 8-12 and 16: Kim as modified by Zheng and Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host material.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0211] and [0227]: The electron transporting host can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative.)}.
The Examiner is equating the modified Kim’s Formula 1-21—which is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative—with the second host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Kim ‘744 by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516.
Kim as modified by Kondakova ‘516 does not teach that the hole transporting host is a compound having the structure of the instant Formula 2.
As outlined above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the hole transporting host can be a carbazole derivative.
Tominaga teaches an organic electroluminescent device {paragraph [0018]}. The light-emitting comprises the carbazole derivative shown below as a host material {(paragraph [0018]), (p. 6, ¶ [0025]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton can be used as a hole transporting material or as a host material.), (p. 8, ¶ [0034]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton is exemplified by the compounds on pp. 5-6.), (p. 6, structure in upper right), (paragraphs [0020] and [0039]; the luminescent material can be a phosphorescent material, which can be an iridium complex)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Tominaga’s Host Material)]
PNG
media_image5.png
202
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore Tominaga’s host material shown above was a known carbazole derivative host material at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, Tominaga teaches that the host materials of Tominaga provide organic light-emitting devices with high durability, high efficiency, and high color purity {paragraphs [0007] and [0058]}.
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 optoelectric device of Kim as modified by Kondakova ‘516 by substituting the generalized carbazole derivative hole transport host of Kondakova ‘516 with Tominaga’s host material, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516 and Tominaga. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Tominaga’s host material has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2 where: m is 0; R8 to R10 are hydrogen; m is 0; L1 is a single bond; Y1 is unsubstituted biphenyl; L2 is a single bond; Y2 is a unsubstituted biphenyl. Tominaga’s host material has the structure of the instant C-8 where: *-L1Y1 is B-2; *-L2Y2 is B-2.
A light emitting layer comprising two host material and a light emitting material is a composition.
Claims 8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/110958 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 103435597—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zheng”) and Park et al. (US 2017/0213968 A1) (hereafter “Park”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Aziz et al. (US 2006/0022590 A1) (hereafter “Aziz”), Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and Yu et al. (US 2012/0273764 A1) (hereafter “Yu”).
Regarding claims 8 and 13-16: Kim as modified by Zheng and Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host material.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0211] and [0227]: The electron transporting host can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative.)}.
The Examiner is equating the Kim’s Formula 1-17—which is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative—with the second host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Kim ‘744 by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516.
Kim as modified by Kondakova ‘516 does not teach that the hole transporting host is a compound having the structure of a combination of the instant Formulas 3 and 4.
As outlined above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the first host is a hole transporting host.
Aziz teaches that indolocarbazole derivatives are hole transporting materials {paragraph [0083]}.
Lee teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {abstract, paragraphs [0008], [0037]-[0040], and [0056]-[0057]}.
The organic layer comprises an emissive layer which can comprise the compound shown below as a host material along with a phosphorescent dopant {(paragraph [0008]: The organic layer comprises an emissive layer, which comprises a first host having the structure if Lee's formula 1.), (paragraph [0035]: The compounds having the structure of Lee's formula 1 are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 6-73.), (p.9, compound C-23), (paragraphs [0008] and [0038]-[0041] the emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emissive dopant.)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
685
1105
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Lee’s Compound C-23)]
Therefore at the time the invention was effectively filed, Lee’s Compound C-23 was a known hole transporting host material.
Lee teaches that Lee’s Compound C-23 is used as a first host material of a light emitting layer {paragraphs [0008]-[0013]}. Lee teaches that the second host material has the structure of Lee’s formula 2 {paragraph [0008]}. Kim’s Formula 1-17 has the structure of Lee’s formula 2 {paragraphs [0014]-[0018]}.
Lee teaches that organic light emitting devices comprising the host mixture has low driving voltage, high color purity, good efficiency and long lifetime {paragraph [0019]}.
Furthermore, Yu teaches that Lee’s Compound C-23 was a known host material component for an organic light emitting device {(paragraphs [0137]-[0145]: Example 1 comprises the compound of Prep. Ex. 1.), (paragraphs [0116]-[0120]: Prep. Ex. 1 produces a compound having the structure of Lee’s Compound C-23.)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant claims to have further modified the device of Kim as modified by Kondakova ‘516 by including Lee’s Compound 23 as the hole transporting host in the emissive layer as a substitution for the generalized hole transporting host of Kondakova ‘516, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516, Aziz, Lee, and Yu. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Compound C-23 of Lee is a compound consisting of a combination of a moiety represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 3 and a moiety represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 4 where: L3 and L4 are each a single bond; Y3 and Y4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group); R12 to R15 are each hydrogen; in each case, La is a single bond, and Rb is hydrogen.
A light emitting layer comprising two host material and a light emitting material is a composition.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 103435597 A—Machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zheng”) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2018/110958 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kim”), Gong et al. (“Tuning the Photophysical Properties and Energy Levels by Linking Spacer and Topology between the Benzimidazole and Carbazole Units: Bipolar Host for Highly Efficient Phosphorescent OLEDs”, 2010, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 114, pp. 5193-5198.) (hereafter “Gong”), Boerner (US 2006/0078757 A1) (hereafter “Boerner”), and Kwong et al. (US 2006/0088728 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”).
Regarding claims 1-7: Zheng discloses the compound shown below, which is useful as a host material for a light emitting dopant in the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device in addition to being useful as a fluorescent material for an organic optoelectronic device {(p. 8, lines 20-36;p. 9, line 20; p. 11, lines 14-19: The 1,3,5-triazine derivative of the disclosure is useful as a host material), (p. 8, 4th to final line through p. 9, line 8: The 1,3,5-triazine derivative of the disclosure is useful as a fluorescent material.), (p. 5, final line: The 1,3,5-triazine derivatives of the disclosure are exemplified by Compounds I1 through I24.), (p. 6, Compound I5)}.
PNG
media_image13.png
405
773
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Zheng does not exemplify a compound similar to the compound shown above in which one of the phenyl ring substituents of the triazine ring is instead a 3-dibenzofuran group.
However, Zheng teaches that the compounds of Zheng have the structure of Zheng’s formula (I) where the substituents of the triazine ring can be heteroaryl in addition to possibly being aryl {p. 2, lines 24-35}.
Kim teaches compounds for use as host materials in an organic optoelectronic device {(paragraphs [90]-[91]: The light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of the present invention may include a host material, and may include the compound of Formula 1 as a host material for a phosphorescent material.), (paragraph [64]: The compounds having the structure of formula 1 are exemplified by compounds having the formulas (1-1) through (7-23).)}.
Kim teaches the compounds shown below {paragraph [65]: The compound having the formula 1-8 and the compound having the formula 1-21}.
[AltContent: textbox (Kim’s Formula 1-8)][AltContent: textbox (Kim’s Formula 1-21)]
PNG
media_image14.png
824
624
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
631
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The only difference between the compounds is that one of the phenyl substituents of the triazine ring of Kim’s Formula 1-8 is instead a 3-dibenzofuran group. Thus, Kim teaches that 3-dibenzofuran is a known alternative to phenyl in compounds in which an N-carbazolyl group is bonded to a triazine ring through phenylene linking groups.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted one of the phenyl substituents of the triazine ring of Zheng’s compound shown above with a 3-dibenzofuran group, based on the teaching of Zheng and Kim. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of a 3-dibenzofuran group would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions shown in the exemplified compounds of Kim {paragraphs [0064]-[0072]}, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum substituent structures when producing compounds to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Zheng does not exemplify a compound similar to the modified compound of Zheng shown above in which the phenylene linker nearest the carbazolyl group is m-phenylene and the phenylene linker nearest the triazinyl group is a p-phenylene linker.
Gong teaches that the structure of the linking spacer changes the thermal properties, photophysical properties of a compound {p. 5198, 1st col., 2nd paragraph}. Divalent phenylene linkers with bonds that are para to each other impart higher glass transition temperatures {(p. 5195, 2nd col., 1st paragraph), (Table 1, Compound 2 vs. Compound 3)}. Gong teaches that higher glass transition temperatures prevents crystallization of a host material and has higher morphological stability {p. 5195, 2nd col., 1st paragraph}. Divalent phenylene linkers with bonds that are meta to each other impart higher triplet energies {p. 5196, 1st col., 2nd paragraph; Compound 3 has a higher triplet energy than Compound 2, the only difference being the metal-phenylene linkers}. Gong teaches that higher triplet energies allow a host material to function with higher triplet energy light-emitting materials {p. 5196, 1st col., 2nd paragraph}.
Boerner teaches that phenylene linkers with meta bonding have higher triplet energies than phenylene linkers with para bonding because of the decreased conjugation associated with the meta bonded phenylene linker {paragraphs [0063]-[0065]}.
Kwong teaches that increasing conjugation, as in the case of para bonding on a phenylene linker as outlined above, increases compound stability {paragraph [0062]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Zheng compound shown above such that the phenylene linker nearest the carbazolyl group is m-phenylene and the phenylene linker nearest the triazinyl group is a p-phenylene linker, based on the teachings of Kim, Gong, Boerner, and Kwong. The motivation for doing so would have been to preserve the glass transition temperature and overall stability of the compound by making the phenylene linker nearest the triazinyl group para-bonded, based on the teaching of Gong and Kwong, while increasing the triplet energy of the compound by replacing the phenylene linker nearest to the carbazolyl group with an m-phenylene group, as taught by Gong et al. and Boerner.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to select the phenylene linker closest to the triazinyl group to be para-bonded, because it would have been choosing one out of two possibilities for having one meta-bonded phenylene linker and one para-bonded phenylene linker.
The resultant compound has the structure of the instant compound [A-21].
Claims 8-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 103435597 A—Machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zheng”) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2018/110958 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kim”), Gong et al. (“Tuning the Photophysical Properties and Energy Levels by Linking Spacer and Topology between the Benzimidazole and Carbazole Units: Bipolar Host for Highly Efficient Phosphorescent OLEDs”, 2010, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 114, pp. 5193-5198.) (hereafter “Gong”), Boerner (US 2006/0078757 A1) (hereafter “Boerner”), and Kwong et al. (US 2006/0088728 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Tominaga et al. (JP 2003-133075 – machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Tominaga”).
Regarding claims 8-12 and 16: Zheng as modified by Kim, Gong, Boerner, and Kwong teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Zheng does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound shown above.
However, as described above, Zheng teaches that the 1,3,5-triazine derivatives of Zheng are us useful as a host material for a light-emitting dopant in the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device or alternatively as a fluorescent light emitting material in the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device.
Zheng teaches that the optoelectronic devices of Zhen comprise an anode and a cathode facing each other, an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer including a light-emitting layer, the light-emitting layer comprising the 1,3,5-triazine derivative of Zheng {(p. 8, lines 20-36;p. 9, line 20; p. 11, lines 14-19: The 1,3,5-triazine derivative of the disclosure is useful as a host material), (p. 8, lines 27-28, p. 9, lines 22-24, p. 11, lines 29-31: The 1,3,5-triazine derivative of the disclosure is used as the blue light-emitting material of a light emitting layer.), (p. 5, final line: The 1,3,5-triazine derivatives of the disclosure are exemplified by Compounds I1 through I24.)}.
At the time the invention was effective filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Zheng such that it was the host material for a for a light-emitting dopant in the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device or as a fluorescent light-emitting material of the light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Zheng. 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, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Zheng does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host material.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0211] and [0227]: The electron transporting host can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative.)}.
The Examiner is equating the modified compound of Zheng shown above—which is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative—with the second host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Zheng as modified by Boerner and Gong by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516.
Zheng as modified by Boerner, Gong, and Kondakova ‘516 does not teach that the hole transporting host is a compound having the structure of the instant Formula 2.
As outlined above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the hole transporting host can be a carbazole derivative.
Tominaga teaches an organic electroluminescent device {paragraph [0018]}. The light-emitting comprises the carbazole derivative shown below as a host material {(paragraph [0018]), (p. 6, ¶ [0025]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton can be used as a hole transporting material or as a host material.), (p. 8, ¶ [0034]; The compound having the carbazole skeleton is exemplified by the compounds on pp. 5-6.), (p. 6, structure in upper right), (paragraphs [0020] and [0039]; the luminescent material can be a phosphorescent material, which can be an iridium complex)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Tominaga’s Host Material)]
PNG
media_image5.png
202
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore Tominaga’s host material shown above was a known carbazole derivative host material at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, Tominaga teaches that the host materials of Tominaga provide organic light-emitting devices with high durability, high efficiency, and high color purity {paragraphs [0007] and [0058]}.
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 optoelectric device of Zheng as modified by Boerner, Gong, and Kondakova ‘516 by substituting the generalized carbazole derivative hole transport host of Kondakova ‘516 with Tominaga’s host material, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516 and Tominaga. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Tominaga’s host material has the structure of the instant Chemical Formula 2 where: m is 0; R8 to R10 are hydrogen; m is 0; L1 is a single bond; Y1 is unsubstituted biphenyl; L2 is a single bond; Y2 is a unsubstituted biphenyl. Tominaga’s host material has the structure of the instant C-8 where: *-L1Y1 is B-2; *-L2Y2 is B-2.
A light emitting layer comprising two host material and a light emitting material is a composition.
Claims 8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 103435597 A—Machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zheng”) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2018/110958 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Kim”), Gong et al. (“Tuning the Photophysical Properties and Energy Levels by Linking Spacer and Topology between the Benzimidazole and Carbazole Units: Bipolar Host for Highly Efficient Phosphorescent OLEDs”, 2010, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 114, pp. 5193-5198.) (hereafter “Gong”), Boerner (US 2006/0078757 A1) (hereafter “Boerner”), and Kwong et al. (US 2006/0088728 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and Yu et al. (US 2012/0273764 A1) (hereafter “Yu”) and as evidenced by Aziz et al. (US 2006/0022590 A1) (hereafter “Aziz”).
Regarding claims 8 and 13-16: Zheng as modified by Kim, Gong, Boerner, and Kwong teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Zheng does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound shown above.
However, as described above, Zheng teaches that the 1,3,5-triazine derivatives of Zheng are us useful as a host material for a light-emitting dopant in the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device or alternatively as a fluorescent light emitting material in the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device.
Zheng teaches that the optoelectronic devices of Zhen comprise an anode and a cathode facing each other, an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer including a light-emitting layer, the light-emitting layer comprising the 1,3,5-triazine derivative of Zheng {(p. 8, lines 20-36;p. 9, line 20; p. 11, lines 14-19: The 1,3,5-triazine derivative of the disclosure is useful as a host material), (p. 8, lines 27-28, p. 9, lines 22-24, p. 11, lines 29-31: The 1,3,5-triazine derivative of the disclosure is used as the blue light-emitting material of a light emitting layer.), (p. 5, final line: The 1,3,5-triazine derivatives of the disclosure are exemplified by Compounds I1 through I24.)}.
At the time the invention was effective filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Zheng such that it was the host material for a for a light-emitting dopant in the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device or as a fluorescent light-emitting material of the light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Zheng. 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, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Zheng does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host material.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material {paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0211] and [0227]: The electron transporting host can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative.)}.
The Examiner is equating the modified compound of Zheng above—which is a 1,3,5-triazine derivative—with the second host.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Zheng by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516.
Zheng as modified by Gong, Boerner, and Kondakova ‘516 does not teach that the hole transporting host is a compound having the structure of a combination of the instant Formulas 3 and 4.
As outlined above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the first host is a hole transporting host.
Aziz teaches that indolocarbazole derivatives are hole transporting materials {paragraph [0083]}.
Lee teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {abstract, paragraphs [0008], [0037]-[0040], and [0056]-[0057]}.
The organic layer comprises an emissive layer which can comprise the compound shown below as a host material along with a phosphorescent dopant {(paragraph [0008]: The organic layer comprises an emissive layer, which comprises a first host having the structure if Lee's formula 1.), (paragraph [0035]: The compounds having the structure of Lee's formula 1 are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 6-73.), (p.9, compound C-23), (paragraphs [0008] and [0038]-[0041] the emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emissive dopant.)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
685
1105
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Lee’s Compound C-23)]
Therefore at the time the invention was effectively filed, Lee’s Compound C-23 was a known hole transporting host material.
Lee teaches that Lee’s Compound C-23 is used as a first host material of a light emitting layer {paragraphs [0008]-[0013]}. Lee teaches that the second host material has the structure of Lee’s formula 2 {paragraph [0008]}. Kim’s Formula 1-17 has the structure of Lee’s formula 2 {paragraphs [0014]-[0018]}.
Lee teaches that organic light emitting devices comprising the host mixture has low driving voltage, high color purity, good efficiency and long lifetime {paragraph [0019]}.
Furthermore, Yu teaches that Lee’s Compound C-23 was a known host material component for an organic light emitting device {(paragraphs [0137]-[0145]: Example 1 comprises the compound of Prep. Ex. 1.), (paragraphs [0116]-[0120]: Prep. Ex. 1 produces a compound having the structure of Lee’s Compound C-23.)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant claims to have further modified the device of Zheng as modified by Gong, Boerner, and Kondakova ‘516 by including Lee’s Compound 23 as the hole transporting host in the emissive layer as a substitution for the generalized hole transporting host of Kondakova ‘516, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516, Aziz, Lee, and Yu. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art at the time of the invention to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device.
Compound C-23 of Lee is a compound consisting of a combination of a moiety represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 3 and a moiety represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 4 where: L3 and L4 are each a single bond; Y3 and Y4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group); R12 to R15 are each hydrogen; in each case, La is a single bond, and Rb is hydrogen.
A light emitting layer comprising two host material and a light emitting material is a composition.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,217,756 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-7: Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,217,756 B2 discloses the compound shown below {Claim 5}.
PNG
media_image15.png
565
673
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-12 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,019 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 16: Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,217,756 B2 discloses a composition for an organic optoelectronic device, comprising a first compound and a second compound {Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends}.
The first compound is a compound having the structure shown below {Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends}.
PNG
media_image16.png
692
699
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Where the substituent variables have the same definitions as Chemical Formula 1 of the current claim 1 {Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends}.
The second compound is a compound having the structure show below {Claim 9}.
PNG
media_image17.png
688
614
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Where the substituent variables have the same definitions as Chemical Formula 2A of the current claim 11 {Claim 9}.
Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,019 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 13-16: Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,217,756 B2 discloses a composition for an organic optoelectronic device, comprising a first compound and a second compound {Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends}.
The first compound is a compound having the structure shown below {Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends}.
PNG
media_image16.png
692
699
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Where the substituent variables have the same definitions as Chemical Formula 1 of the current claim 1 {Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends}.
The second compound is a compound having the structure show below {Claim 10}.
PNG
media_image18.png
695
670
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Where the substituent variables have the same definitions as Chemical Formula 2A of the current claim 11 {Claim 10}.
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
Prosecution Insights