DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment dated July 14, 2023 is entered. Claims 1-10 were amended and are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2021-0097800 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite “an organic alloy”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “alloy” has been considered with respect to the current claim language and “alloy” is considered to be a mixture. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the disclosure appears to describe specific heat treatment of combined materials, the claim language is not limited to the specific treatment discussed in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0165145 A1).
Regarding a device structure of claim 1, Park et al. teaches organic light emitting devices comprising a layer comprising a Chemical Formula 1 compound and a Chemical Formula 2 compound (see abstract and par. 9-32):
PNG
media_image1.png
162
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
258
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
In formula 1 (per instant formula 1), X is O or S per instant Y as O or S (see par. 11). Variable n and variable p may each be zero (see par. 19 and 21). Ar1 and Ar2 may be selected as same or different unsubstituted or substituted C6 to C60 aryl or C2 to C60 heteroaryl (see par. 15). At least one specifically named heteroaryl is indolo[2,3-a]carbazolyl group (see par. 72) per the group shown in instant formula 1. X1 to X3 may be N or CRe with at least one as N (see par. 13).
In formula 2 (per instant formula 2), Ra and Rb substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl (see par. 28) per instant Ar3 and Ar4. Rc and Rd can be deuterium (see par. 26), a substituted of Ar3 or Ar4 can be deuterium (see par. 54), and some hydrogens can be deuterium (see par. 55) per the recited at least one deuterium present.
Per an “organic alloy” mixture combination, Park et al. teaches compounds of Formula 1 and Formula 2 are pre-mixed then vacuum deposited to form a layer (see par. 277-280, 366).
Regarding claim 2, with respect to instant Ar1 variable, Park et al. Ar1 or Ar2 may be aryl that includes at least phenyl (see par. 15, 69).
Regarding claim 3, a Park et al. Ar1 or Ar2 may be selected as substituted heteroaryl specifically as indolo[2,3-a]carbazolyl group (see par. 72) with the substituent as aryl as phenyl (see par. 54, 69).
Regarding claim 4, Ar1 or Ar2 may be selected as aryl fluorenyl group that may include a fluorenyl with alkyl (see par. 15, 69-71).
Regarding claim 5, a Park et al. Ar1 or Ar2 may be selected as substituted heteroaryl specifically as indolo[2,3-a]carbazolyl group (see par. 72) with the substituent as aryl as phenyl (see par. 54, 69) per instant Ar2. There is no Park et al. requirement for further substitution on the indolocarbazole group per the limitation of “hydrogen”. With respect to “deuterium”, substitution may include deuterium (see par. 54-55).
Regarding claim 6 and at least the following compound, Park et al. formula 1 meets the requirements of the compound when X is O (par. 11), Ar1 or Ar2 is phenyl (par. 15, 69), the other of Ar1 or Ar2 is phenyl substituted heteroaryl indolo[2,3-a]carbazolyl group (see par. 15, 72) and each of X1 to X3 is N (see par. 13):
PNG
media_image3.png
142
126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 7, Park et al. formula 2 specifically teaches the same bonding sites of the carbazole to carbazole group as show in claim 7 (see par. 24).
With respect to claim 8, Ra and Rb substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl (see par. 28) per instant Ar3 and Ar4, which may specifically include at least aryl phenyl, biphenyl, naphthyl, and dimethylfluorenyl (see par. 69-71) and heteroaryl dibenzothiophene or dibenzofuran (see par. 72). These groups may be substituted or unsubstituted (par. 28) where a substituent is recognized to include deuterium (see par. 54-55).
With respect to claim 9, Park et al. Rc and Rd may be selected as hydrogen, deuterium or C6 aryl phenyl (see par. 26, 54, 55, 69).
With respect to claim 10, Park et al. formula 2 may include Ra or Rb as aryl such as phenyl and the compound may include a deuterium (see par. 24-32, 54, 55, 69).
While Park et al. does not appear to teach an example device where each of a Formula 1 compound and a Formula 2 compound were selected as specifically described above meeting the requirements of instant formulas 1 and 2 of instant claim 1, given the teachings of the Park et al. reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds of the reference as described above with respect to formulas 1 and 2 wherein the resultant compounds for a layer would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising compounds for a layer of a light emitting device structure within the disclosure of Park et al. with a predictable result of light emission with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang, Y., Yun, J. H., Wang, L., & Park, J. Y. (2021). High triplet energy hosts for blue organic light‐emitting diodes. Advanced Functional Materials, 31(12), 2008332.
The non-patent literature reference discusses host materials include carbazole groups for use in a light emitting device. The reference is considered relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights