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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2025 and 09/16/2024 have each been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least a chemical structure formula of the compound of Formula 1 should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structure formulae on page 7, in the synthesis scheme on page 70, and in the tables throughout pages 73-to 143 are of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-10, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the chemical structure formulae in claims 7-9 and 13 are of poor resolution; and
it is suggested that comma after "device" and before "comprising" in the preamble of claims 10 and 17 be deleted for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. KR-20220110111-A (hereinafter "Seo-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Seo-MT") in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 (hereinafter "Li").
It is noted that Seo et al. KR-20220110111-A is cited on the IDS of 09/16/2024.
Regarding claims 1-10, 14, and 16-17, Seo teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an organic layer between an anode and a cathode (Seo-MT, page 30 of 63, lines 1-7) wherein the organic layer comprises an emission layer, and the emission layer comprising a compound of Formula 1 as a host with a dopant (Seo-MT, page 30 of 63, lines 24-31). Seo teaches the compound of Formula 1 may be represented by a formula 1B-1
PNG
media_image1.png
371
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Seo-MT, page 5 of 63, lines 2-4 and 20-22, and Seo-KR, page 40). Seo teaches the device comprising the compound realizes low driving, high efficiency, and long lifespan (Seo-MT, page 4 of 63, lines 11-19). Seo teaches examples of the compound of Formula 1 and 1B-1 including 1-69 to 1-72
PNG
media_image2.png
188
491
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Seo-KR, page 47).
Seo does not exemplify a compound of the claimed Formula 1. For example, the compounds 1-69 to 1-72 differ from the claimed compound in that the benzonaphthofuran group is not partially or fully deuterated. However, Seo teaches the variables R2, R5, and R6 , which make up the substituents of the benzonaphthofuran group, may be deuterium (Seo-MT, page 4 of 63, lines 9-10 and page 5 of 63, lines 12-23).
Li teaches that a deuterated organic system has better thermal stability, and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices (¶ [0009]) and deuterated organic semiconductor materials exhibit improved performance including brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime compared to non-deuterated organic semiconductor materials (Abstract, ¶ [0023], and [0077]).
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 the compound in the device of Seo to include at least one deuterium, based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime, as taught by Li.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose R2, R5 and/or R5 as the groups to substitute with deuterium, because it would have been choosing from a limited number of positions for deuteration, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host in the emission layer of the device of Seo and possessing the benefits of low driving, high efficiency, and long lifespan taught by Seo and better thermal stability, and longer lifetime as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds comprising deuterium substituents having the benefits taught by Li in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound of Seo meets the claimed Formula 1, 4, 4-4, wherein:
X and Y are each O;
Ar11 and Ar12 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group);
L1 is a direct bond;
R11 and R13 are each deuterium and R12 is hydrogen;
R and R' are not required to be present;
m is 0 and c is 4;
a is 5; and
b is 6.
The modified compound 1-69 of Seo corresponds to the claimed compound 1-12.
The modified compound 1-70 of Seo corresponds to the claimed compound 1-32.
The modified compound 1-71 of Seo corresponds to the claimed compound 1-52.
The modified compound 1-72 of Seo corresponds to the claimed compound 1-72.
Therefore, the device comprising the modified compound of Seo in view of Li meets claims 1-10, 14, and 16-17.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. KR-20220110111-A (hereinafter "Seo-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Seo-MT") in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 (hereinafter "Li") as applied to claims 10 and 17 above and further in view of Lee et al. US-20060103298-A1 (hereinafter "Lee") and Kawamura et al. JP-2017141167-A (hereinafter "Kawamura-JP", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Kawamura-MT").
Regarding claims 11-13, 15, and 18-19, Seo in view of Li teaches the device comprising the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claims 10 and 17.
Seo in view of Li does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising, in the emission layer, the heterocyclic compound of claimed Formula 2.
Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent device which can prevent device characteristics from being degraded due to crystallization which may occur during a device operation (¶ [0013]) wherein the device comprises at least one light-emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one dopant and at least two host materials including a first host material and a second host material (¶ [0015]). Lee teaches the first host material is a small molecular material and may be selected from a group comprising carbazoles (¶ [0029]) and the second host material may be selected from a group comprising triazines (¶ [0031]). Lee teaches that preferably, in order to improve the device characteristics, the second host material has weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the first host material having weight ratio of 1 (¶ [0033]). Lee-1 teaches that the crystallization of the first host material can be prevented by a second host material (¶ [0031]-[0032], ¶ [0046]-[0047]). Lee-1 teaches that in this way device characteristic degradation and device damage which may result from crystallization can be prevented (¶ [0035], ¶ [0076]).
Kawamura teaches a carbazole containing compound of a formula (1) for use in an organic light emitting device (Kawamura-MT, page 5 of 42, lines 4-6), wherein the compound is used as a host in an emission layer (Kawamura-MT, page 14 of 42, lines 10-14). Kawamura teaches examples of the host material including
PNG
media_image3.png
183
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Kawamura-JP, page 27). Kawamura teaches the device comprising the compound has a long life, high luminous efficiency, and can be driven at a low voltage (Kawamura-MT, page 36 of 42, lines 28-30).
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 a second host compound in the device of Seo in view of Li such that the additional host material has weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the first host material having weight ratio of 1, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent device characteristic degradation and device damage due to crystallization of the host compound of Seo which may occur during device operation or manufacturing, as taught by Lee.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Seo in view of Li and Lee by forming the additional host out of the compound as taught by Kawamura. One would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches the additional host material comprising carbazole and Kawamura teaches a carbazole containing host material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Kawamura teaches the device comprising the compound has a long life, high luminous efficiency, and can be driven at a low voltage and therefore forming the additional host in the device of Seo in view of Li and Lee out of the compound of Kawamura would yield the benefit of long life, high luminous efficiency, and low driving voltage, as described above.
The compound of
PNG
media_image3.png
183
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of Kawamura, for example, meets the claimed Formula 2 and corresponds to the claimed compound 2-12.
Therefore, the modified device of Seo in view of Li, Lee, and Kawamura meet claims 11-13, 15, and 18.
Further, wherein the additional host material has weight ratio of 0.3 to 3 with respect to the first host material having weight ratio of 1 falls within the claimed range of 1:10 to 10:1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, the modified device of Seo in view of Li, Lee, and Kawamura meets claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chae et al. US-20200287140-A1 discloses compounds of Formula 1 (¶ [0016]) including, for example, compound 2-29
PNG
media_image4.png
281
258
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 28); Niu et al. CN-115894465-A discloses compounds of Formulae (I) and (II) (page 4) including, for example, compound 4
PNG
media_image5.png
165
243
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 5); and Lee et al. WO-2020116822-A1 discloses compounds of Formula 1 (page 2) including, for example,
PNG
media_image6.png
194
133
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 23).
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