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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2023/0371374). Cho et al. has an foreign priority date of 5/10/22, which is before Applicants filing date of 5/16/22 but after Applicants (unperfected) foreign priority dates and qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2).
Claim 1: Cho et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices which comprise an anode, a hole transport region, an emission region comprising a mixture of host materials and a dopant, an electron transport region, and a cathode. As one example, device example 2 as shown in Table 1 includes as the first host, compound H1-1 which has the structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
188
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 300), and as the second host, compound H2-1, which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
130
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 301). Compound H2-1 satisfies all of the limitations of Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 1, compound H2-1 has L1-L3 equal to a single bond, Ar1 equal to naphthyl, Ar2 equal to a phenyl-substituted naphthyl, variable a equal to zero, and Dn equal to zero. Compound H1-1 satisfies all of the limitations of Chemical Formula 2 of claim 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 2, compound H1-1 has X equal to O, R1, R2, and R4-R10 equal to hydrogen, R3 equal to Chemical Formula 3 with L4-L6 equal to single bonds, Ar3 equal to phenyl, and Ar4 equal to a substituted phenyl. Device example 2 therefore anticipates all of the device and structural limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2: Compound H2-1 above also satisfies Chemical Formula 1-1 of claim 2 with all variable assignments being described in claim 1.
Claim 3: In compound H2-1, Ar1 is naphthyl and Ar2 is (phenyl)naphthyl, which also anticipates claim 3.
Claim 4: In compound H2-1, L1-L3 are equal to single bonds, thereby anticipating claim 4.
Claim 5: In compound H-1, all R groups not bonded to Chemical Formula 3 are equal to hydrogen atoms, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claim 6: In compound H2-1, a is equal to zero, thereby anticipating claim 6.
Claims 7 and 8: While not shown in Compound H2-1, there is inherently a naturally occurring amount of deuterium present which means that at least some of compound H2-1, including the R groups would be substituted with at least one deuterium atom, thereby satisfying claims 7 and 8. There is nothing recited in the claims which requires that the amount of deuterium present is greater than the naturally occurring amount.
Claim 10: Compound H1-1 above also anticipates Formula 2-3 of claim 10 with all variable assignments being described above.
Claims 12 and 13: In compound H1-1, L4-L6 are equal to single bonds, thereby anticipating claims 12 and 13.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0123223).
Claims 1-6: Kang et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices which comprise an anode, a hole transport region, an emission region comprising a mixture of host materials and a dopant, an electron transport region, and a cathode. The device examples more specifically teach a first host and a second host. Preferred first host compound are taught in paragraph 0070 and include compounds H1-1 through H1-143. Preferred second host compounds are taught in paragraph 0071 and include compounds H2-1 through H2-170. While Kang et al. does not teach any device examples where the first and second host materials both satisfy Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 as claimed, the overall teachings of Kang et al. render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art such devices. Specifically, the second hosts employed in the device examples include compounds H2-1 through H2-5 and H2-151. All of these host materials satisfy Chemical Formula 1 of claim 1. As one example, compound H2-1, which has the structure,
PNG
media_image3.png
132
190
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 116) satisfies Chemical Formula 1. As applied to Chemical Formula 1, this compound has a equal to zero, Dn equal to zero, L1-L3 equal to single bonds, Ar1 equal to naphthyl, and Ar2 equal to phenanthryl, which also satisfies the structural limitations of Chemical Formula 1-1 of claim 2, as well as claims 3-6. While the device examples which employ compounds H2-1 through H2-5 and H2-151 as a second host do not employ a first host compound which satisfies Chemical Formula 2 of claim 1, included in the preferred first host compounds are compounds H1-25 and H1-32. Kang et al. is not limited only to the device examples taught therein but rather includes non-exemplified, non-preferred device examples, including those where any one of compounds H1-1 through H1-143 are employed as the first host material. Under In re Merck, it is prima facie obvious to combine specific components or select a disclosed preferred component from a known class when the reference suggests doing so to achieve the desired device architecture or function. Because Kang et al. explicitly teaches that the first host material therein includes compounds which satisfy Chemical Formula 2 (compounds H1-25 and H1-32, for example), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substituted or select any one of the explicitly taught first host materials into the dual-host system disclosed in the device examples of Kang et al. The motivation to do so stems from Kang’s own teaching that the disclosed class of first host materials functions effectively in a multi-host OLED emission layer. Because both host materials are explicitly disclosed within Kang et al. for use in the same layer of an OLED a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in pairing any one of the preferred first host materials with any one of the second host materials of Kang et al., including those where one of H1-25 or H1-32 is paired with any one of the second host materials H2-1 through H2-5 and H2-151 as taught therein.
As applied to Chemical Formula 2, compound H1-25 has R1 through R7, R9, and R10 equal to hydrogen atoms, X equal to O, R8 equal to Chemical Formula 3 with L1-L3 equal to single bonds, Ar3 equal to a phenyl-substituted dibenzofuran group, and Ar4 equal to a phenyl-substituted C15 heteroaryl group. As applied to Chemical Formula 2, compound H1-32 has R1 and R3 through R10 equal to hydrogen atoms, X equal to O, R2 equal to Chemical Formula 3 with L1-L3 equal to single bonds, Ar3 equal to biphenyl, and Ar4 equal to a phenyl-substituted C15 heteroaryl group.
Claims 7 and 8: While Kang et al. does not explicitly teach that the second host compounds include one or more deuterium atoms as variable R, there is inherently a naturally occurring amount of deuterium present which means that at least some of compound H2-1, including the R groups would be substituted with at least one deuterium atom, thereby satisfying claims 7 and 8. There is nothing recited in the claims which requires that the amount of deuterium present is greater than the naturally occurring amount.
Claim 10: Compound H1-25 further satisfies Chemical Formula 2-8 of claim 10 and compound H1-32 further satisfies Chemical Formula 2-2 of claim 10 with all variable assignments being described above.
Claims 12 and 13: In compounds H1-25 and H1-32, L4-L6 are equal to single bonds, thereby satisfying claims 12 and 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Organic light-emitting devices where the light emitting layer is comprised of one of the specific compounds recited in claims 9 and 14 are not taught or suggested by the prior art. Additionally, the compounds disclosed in the references cited above do not satisfy the limitations of variables Ar3 and Ar4 as recited in claim 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights