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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2014/0231769 A1) in view of Hyun (English translation of KR 20200100972 A obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11, Nishimura teaches an organic electroluminescence device having improved lifetime by including an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer therebetween, wherein the organic layer includes an emitting layer, which further includes a first host material, a second host material, and a phosphorescent dopant material (abstract; ¶ [0227]-[0233]). Nishimura teaches a specific example of such a device in Example 6 which comprises H13 as the first host material and H6 as the second host material (see Table 1 on pg. 416). Compound H13 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1 (see structure on pg. 415).
H13:
PNG
media_image1.png
179
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound H13 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
L is an unsubstituted C6 arylene (phenylene) (claim 3);
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) (claim 4);
Ar3 is hydrogen (claim 5);
D is not required to be present; and
n is an integer of 0.
H6 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2. However, Nishimura teaches the second host material may be represented by formula (30) (¶ [0039]). Additionally, Nishimura teaches the compound represented by formula (30) exhibits electron blocking capability or hole transporting capability (¶ [0227]).
formula (30):
PNG
media_image3.png
89
228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hyun teaches an organic luminescent compound represented by chemical formula I for use in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device, wherein the compound provides the device with excellent luminous efficiency and quantum efficiency and improved lifetime (¶ [0012]-[0016], [0084], and [0205]). The compound may specifically be provided as a host in a light-emitting layer (¶ [0194]; Table 2 on pg. 43). Additionally, as the compound represented by chemical formula I may be used in a hole transport layer or an electron blocking layer, the compound has electron blocking and hole transporting capability (¶ [0053]). Examples of compounds represented by chemical formula I include compound 1 (see structure on pg. 13). Hyun’s compound 1 reads on Nishimura’s formula (30) (see Nishimura, ¶ [0039]-[0049]).
compound 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
76
201
media_image4.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 substitute the second host compound of H6 in Nishimura’s Example 6 with a compound represented by Hyun’s chemical formula I, based on the teaching of Hyun. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with excellent luminous efficiency and quantum efficiency and improved lifetime, as taught by Hyun.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Hyun’s compound 1, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds taught by Hyun and represented by chemical formula I, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nishimura in view of Hyun and possessing the benefits taught by Nishimura and Hyun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising second host compounds represented by Nishimura’s formula (30) having the benefits taught by Nishimura in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Hyun’s compound 1 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 due to the attachment position of the arylamine group.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Hyun’s compound 1 wherein the arylamine group
PNG
media_image4.png
76
201
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is provided in the highlighted location
PNG
media_image5.png
117
201
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomers of the compound represented by Hyun’s chemical formula I in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nishimura in view of Hyun and possess the properties taught by Hyun. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified compound 1 reads on Nishimura’s formula (30) wherein: Ar230 in each instance is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 12 ring carbon atoms; Y3 is O; L3 is a single bond; w is 1; R231 is hydrogen and R232 is a substituted alkoxy group that combines with an adjacent R232 to form a ring (see Nishimura, ¶ [0039]-[0049]). Accordingly, the modified Example 6 is expected to obtain the benefits of Nishimura.
The modified compound 1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
modified 1:
PNG
media_image6.png
389
351
media_image6.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image7.png
127
378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
2-a:
PNG
media_image8.png
135
98
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein:
A’1 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-a;
Ar’1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) (claim 9);
L’ is a single bond (claim 8);
Ar’2 and Ar’3 are each an unsubstituted C12 aryl (biphenyl) (claim 10);
D is not required to be present; and
n’ is 0.
Additionally, the modified compound 1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2-1 (claim 7) and the fifth claimed compound on pg. 115 of claim 11.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Nishimura in view of Hyun teach the modified Example 6 comprising Nishimura’s compound H13 as the first host compound, as described above with respect to claim 1.
H13:
PNG
media_image1.png
179
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound H13 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1-2 due to the attachment position of the phenyl-triazine moiety. However, in formula (1), Nishimura does not limit the attachment of dibenzofuran to the remainder of the structure (¶ [0007]-[0017]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Nishimura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of H13 wherein the phenyl-triazine moiety is attached in the 1-position of the dibenzofuran rather than the 2-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Nishimura’s formula (1) in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the first host in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nishimura in view of Hyun and possess the properties taught by Nishimura. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified H13 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1 (claim 2) and reads on the second claimed compound on pg. 54 in claim 6.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights