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 10-2020-0170000, filed on 12/08/2020.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hyun et al. (US 2020/0377492 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 06/08/2023, hereafter “Hyun”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Hyun discloses Compound 31 which reads on Applicant’s Formula I (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
231
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
134
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
279
325
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar is an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) substituted with four fluorine atoms and one cyano group, m is 1,
L is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 carbon atoms, n is 1,
R1 and R2 are each represented by Structural Formula 1 wherein,
X is O,
Z is CR,
R are each hydrogen,
R3 is linked to Formula 1 at the R1 and R2 positions.
Regarding Claim 2, Compound 31 comprises Structural Formula 1 which is represented by Structural Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
147
200
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is O,
Z is CR,
R are each hydrogen,
R3 is linked to Formula 1 at the R1 and R2 positions.
Regarding Claim 3, Ar is substituted with four halogen groups (fluorine) and one cyano group, while L, R, and R3 each have no substituents.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN 111777602 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 06/08/2023, hereafter “Zhou”). An English translation was provided in this office action.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou discloses Compound 23 which reads on Applicant’s Formula I (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
231
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
134
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
298
211
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar is an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) substituted with one cyano group, m is 1,
L is a single bond, n is 0,
R1 and R2 are each represented by Structural Formula 1 wherein,
X is S,
Z is CR,
R are each either hydrogen or linked to Formula 1 at the R1 and R2 positions,
R3 is an alkyl group having 3 carbon atoms (tert-butyl).
Regarding Claim 2, Compound 23 comprises Structural Formula 1 which is represented by Structural Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
147
200
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is S,
Z is CR,
R are each either hydrogen or linked to Formula 1 at the R1 and R2 positions,
R3 is an alkyl group having 3 carbon atoms (tert-butyl).
Regarding Claim 3, Ar is substituted with one cyano group, while L, R, and R3 each have no substituents.
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 4–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hyun et al. (US 2020/0377492 A1) as applied to claims 1–3 above.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Hyun teaches organic electroluminescent compounds which is employed as a material in at least one layer of an electroluminescent device, achieving high luminous efficiency and quantum efficiency [0008]. Specifically, Hyuan teaches example electroluminescent devices comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic electroluminescent compound taught by Hyun is used as a host material [0116] – [0117].
However, Hyun does not disclose an exemplified device comprising Compound 31.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 31 as a host material in the organic electroluminescent devices taught by Hyun, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds of Hyun, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Hyun and possessing the benefits taught by Hyun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 31 having the benefits taught by Hyun in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting organic electroluminescent device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises Compound 31 as a host material.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Hyun teaches a capping layer may be formed under the first electrode or on the second electrode [0044]. Hyun further teaches that compounds of present intention have a relatively high refractive index, and can therefore increase the luminous efficiency of an organic electroluminescent device if used in a capping layer [0045]. Additionally, Hyun teaches devices including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, a cathode, and a capping layer which comprises a compound of present invention in the capping layer [0123] – [0124].
However, Hyun does not disclose an exemplified device comprising Compound 31 in a capping layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 31 in the capping layer of the organic electroluminescent devices taught by Hyun, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds of Hyun, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a capping material in the capping layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Hyun and possessing the benefits taught by Hyun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 31 in the capping layer having the benefits taught by Hyun in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting organic electroluminescent device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, a cathode, and a capping layer which comprises Compound 31.
Regarding Claim 7, Hyun teaches that having a compound of present invention in at least one organic layer of an organic electroluminescent device, such as a light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, an electron blocking layer, and/or a capping layer ensures high luminous efficiency and quantum efficiency [0011].
However, Hyun does not disclose an exemplified device comprising Compound 31 in an electron transport layer.
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 use Compound 31 in the electron transport layer, because it would have been choosing between light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, an electron blocking layer, and/or a capping layer, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the electron transport material in the electron transport layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Hyun and possessing the benefits taught by Hyun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 31 in the electron transport layer having the benefits taught by Hyun in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting organic electroluminescent device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises Compound 31 in the electron transport layer.
Regarding Claim 4, Compound 31 is nearly identical to Applicant’s Compound 26, however Compound 31 is substituted by four fluorine atoms.
Compound 31 is represented by Hyun’s Formula (I) (shown below) [0008]. Hyun teaches Ar does not have to be a fluorine atom. In fact, Hyun teaches Compound 2, which is nearly identical to Compound 31 but it has no fluorine atoms and no cyano group [0039]
PNG
media_image6.png
285
178
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
279
325
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
299
310
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
380
223
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 31 to not have fluorine atoms, like Compound 2, based on the teaching of Hyun. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce additional compounds with the luminous efficiency and quantum efficiency benefits, as taught by Hyun.
The modified version of Compound 31 is identical to Applicant’s Compound 26.
Claims 4–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhou et al. (CN 111777602 A) as applied to claims 1–3 above.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Zhou teaches compounds of present invention have a high refractive index, improving the device’s light output efficiency, thus enhancing the device’s luminous efficiency. Additionally, an organic light emitting device comprising a compound of present invention can extend the device’s service life and improve its luminous efficiency [pg. 2]. Zhou further teaches devices including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a cathode, and a cover layer comprising a compound of present invention [pg. 11].
However, Zhou does not teach an exemplified device comprising Compound 23 in the cover layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 23 in the cover layer of the organic electroluminescent devices taught by Zhou, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds of Zhou, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a cover material in the cover layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Zhou and possessing the benefits taught by Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 23 in the cover layer having the benefits taught by Zhou in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting organic electroluminescent device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a cathode, and a cover layer comprising Compound 23.
Regarding Claim 4, Compound 23 does not read on the compounds listed in claim 4.
Compound 23 is represented by Zhou’s Formula (I) wherein R1 and R2 are each an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (tert-butyl) [pg. 2]. Zhou further teaches Compound 33 wherein R1 and R2 are each aryl groups having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) [pg. 4].
PNG
media_image9.png
193
555
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
298
211
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
429
295
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Zhou, 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 23 by substituting phenyl for tert-butyl, because Zhou teaches the variable may suitably be selected as phenyl or tert-butyl. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a cover material in the cover layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Zhou and possess the benefits taught by Zhou. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified version of Compound 23 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it is identical to Applicant’s Compound 71 (shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
203
218
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhou et al. (CN 111777602 A) as applied to claims 1–4 and 8–9 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2016/0181544 A1, hereafter “Choi”)
Regarding Claims 5, 6, and 7, Zhou teaches an organic electroluminescent device including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a cathode, and a cover layer comprising a compound of present invention [pg. 11].
However, Zhou does not teach an organic electroluminescent device wherein the electron transport layer comprises Compound 23.
Choi teaches compounds which provide excellent light emitting efficiency, extended lifespan, and enhanced thermal stability when used in a light emitting element [0025]. Choi teaches compounds which may be included in one of a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and a light emitting layer of a light emitting element [0081]. Specifically, Choi teaches Compound 4, which comprises a benzothiozole and three carbazoles [0161]. Therefore, since Compound 4 is similar to Compound 23 as they both comprise a benzothiozole and a carbazole, it is expected that Compound 23 may be used in the hole transport layer, electron transport layer, or light emitting layer, like Compound 4.
PNG
media_image12.png
278
331
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
298
211
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound 23 in the electron transport layer of the organic electroluminescent device taught by Zhou, because it would have been choosing between including Compound 23 in the hole transport layer, light emitting layer, or electron transport layer, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a electron transport material in the electron transport layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Zhou and possessing the benefits taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 23 in the electron transport layer having the benefits taught by Choi in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting organic electroluminescent device reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a cathode, and a cover layer, wherein the electron transport layer comprises Compound 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (KR 2017/0116927 A, an English translation was provided in this office action) teaches compounds for a capping layer of an organic electroluminescent device, such as Compound 1-25 (shown below). Compound 1-25 nearly reads on Applicant’s Formula 1, however it does not comprise a cyano group.
PNG
media_image13.png
273
327
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Zhao et al. (CN 111039938 A, an English translation was provided in this office action) teaches compounds which appear to read on Applicant’s Formula 1, such as Compound 16 (shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
274
364
media_image14.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