DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on
applications filed in Korea on April 30, 2021.
3. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.
119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the
foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and
41.202(e).
4. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded
for the non-English application
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on
August 10, 2023 and September 10, 2024 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
There appears to be a typographical error in that Chemical Formula 2, in claim 1, and Chemical Formula 2-1, in claim 8, both depict a substituent Ar1’ but then subsequently provide definitions for a substituent Ar’1.
7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
10. Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “wherein, the methyl groups included in Chemical Formula are each…” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear which Chemical Formula and/or chemical structures include the methyl groups. For the purpose of examination, the recitation of this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein, the methyl groups included in the compounds represented by Chemical Formula 2 are each…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Ham et al. (WO 2016/108596 A2; English machine translation obtained from WIPO, hereinafter “Ham”) in view of Liu et al. (CN 108948008 A; English machine translation obtained from WIPO, hereinafter “Liu”).
16. Regarding claim 1, Ham teaches organic light emitting devices, comprising a dual host material system in the light emitting layer, that exhibit low driving voltages, long lifespans, and high efficiencies (¶ [0021]-[0027]).
17. Ham specifically teaches an organic light emitting device comprising:
an anode (ITO, ¶ [0320]); and
a cathode (Al, ¶ [0320]); and
a light emitting layer between the anode and cathode (¶ [0320]); and
wherein the light emitting layer includes a compound of Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 of the instant application {compounds 1-12 (Ham) and 2-3 (Ham); see Table 1, Example 16 and structures below}
PNG
media_image1.png
199
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
168
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
18. Compound 1-12 (Ham) reads on all of the limitations of Chemical Formula 1 per claim 1 wherein:
Y is a sulfur atom; and
X1 to X3 are each independently nitrogen atoms; and
Ar1 and Ar2 are each independently unsubstituted C6 aryl groups; and
Ar3 is an unsubstituted C18 aryl group; and
R1 are all hydrogen atoms; and
n is an integer equal to six.
19. Compound 2-3 (Ham) fails to read on all of the limitations of Chemical Formula 2 per claim 1 as neither R’1 or R’2 and/or Ar’1 or Ar’2 are substituted with at least one deuterium atom. It should be noted however, that Ham discloses that a compound representing Chemical Formula 2 (Ham) may be substituted with deuterium (¶ [0092]-[0095]).
20. Liu teaches deuterated carbazole-containing compounds that exhibit high quantum efficiency (pg. 1) and that are useful host materials in the light emitting layer of organic light emitting devices (pg. 19).
21. Liu teaches that organic light emitting devices, comprising deuterated carbazole-containing compounds of Liu, possess higher quantum efficiency and less roll-off than devices comprising non-deuterated host materials (pg. 19).
22. Liu discloses the following compound D-10 (see structure below, pg. 13)
PNG
media_image3.png
672
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
23. Compound D-10 (Liu) reads on all of the limitations of Chemical Formula 2 per claim 1 wherein:
n’ and m’ are each independently integers equal to seven; and
R’1 and R’2 are all hydrogen atoms; and
Ar’1 and Ar’2 are each independently C6 aryl groups substituted with five deuterium atoms.
24. 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 compound 2-3 (Ham) with compound D-10 (Liu) as a second host material in the light-emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Ham, based on the teaching of Liu (pg. 19). The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain organic light emitting devices that exhibit higher quantum efficiency and less roll-off compared to devices comprising non-deuterated host materials (pg. 19), as taught by Liu.
25. Additionally, 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 compound 2-3 (Ham) with compound D-10 (Liu) as a second host material in the light-emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Ham, because it would have been choosing a suitable deuterated carbazole-containing compound taught by Liu, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second host material in the light-emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Ham and possessing the benefits taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound D-10 (Liu) as a second host material in the light-emitting layer having the benefits taught by Liu in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
26. Per claim 1 , the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on all of the limitations of Chemical Formulae 1 and 2, as outlined above.
27. Per claim 2, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein at least two of X1 to X3 are nitrogen atoms.
28. Per claim 3, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each independently phenyl groups.
29. Per claims 4-5, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein Ar3 is an unsubstituted triphenylenyl group.
30. Per claim 6, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein each R1 is independently a hydrogen atom.
31. Per claim 7, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein compound 1-12 (Ham) is identical to the following compound (pg. 71 of instant claims; see structure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
187
268
media_image4.png
Greyscale
32. Per claim 8, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein the requirements of Chemical Formula 2-1 are satisfied by compound D-10 (Liu) and
n’, m’, R’1, R’2, Ar’1, and Ar’2 are the same as previously outlined.
33. Per claim 9, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein R’1 and R’2 are all hydrogen atoms.
34. Per claim 10, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein Ar’1 and Ar’2 are each independently phenyl groups substituted with five deuterium atoms
35. Per claim 12, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein compound D-10 (Liu) is identical to the following compound (pg. 77 of instant claims; see structure below)
PNG
media_image5.png
250
263
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and wherein a + b + c + d = 10.
36. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ham et al. (WO 2016/108596 A2; English machine translation obtained from WIPO, hereinafter “Ham”) in view of Liu et al. (CN 108948008 A; English machine translation obtained from WIPO, hereinafter “Liu”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1; hereinafter “Li”).
37. Regarding claim 11, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer fails to read on the limitation wherein the compound of Chemical Formula 2 (compound D-10 (Liu)) has a deuterium substitution rate of 60 to 100%.
38. Liu does, however, teach that the hydrogen atoms on the bis-carbazole framework may be deuterated (pg. 9).
39. Li teaches that carbon-deuterium bonds are stronger, more stable, and react
more slowly than carbon-hydrogen bonds, which contributes to better thermal stability
and longer organic light emitting device lifetimes (¶ [0009]).
40. 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 all the hydrogen atoms on the bis-carbazole framework of compound D-10 (Liu) with deuterium atoms, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain deuterated organic semiconducting materials possessing the benefits as taught by Li (carbon-deuterium bonds are stronger, more stable, and react more slowly than carbon-hydrogen bonds, which contributes to better thermal stability and longer organic light emitting device lifetimes, ¶ [0009]).
41. The resulting compound from the modification of compound D-10 (Liu), motivated by Li, is shown below.
PNG
media_image6.png
366
512
media_image6.png
Greyscale
42. Per claim 11, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu and Li, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu, Li Modification) in the light emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein the deuterium substitution rate is 100%.
43. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ham et al. (WO 2016/108596 A2; English machine translation obtained from WIPO, hereinafter “Ham”) in view of Liu et al. (CN 108948008 A; English machine translation obtained from WIPO, hereinafter “Liu”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (JP 2020/127020 A; hereinafter “Park”).
44. Regarding claim 13, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer fails to read on the limitation wherein the light emitting layer comprises an organic alloy of compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu).
45. Park teaches organic alloys as useful materials in organic light emitting devices (¶ [0008]) and teaches the use of organic alloys (comprising at least two types of organic compounds ¶ [0011]) in the light emitting layer (¶ [0191]).
46. Park teaches that the organic alloys are formed by the pre-treatment, such as heating and/or sublimation, of two or more organic compounds (¶ [0029]), and that the organic alloys have different characteristics distinguishable from the compounds used in isolation and from simple mixtures of the compounds used to form the organic alloy (¶ [0032]).
47. Park also teaches that the use of organic alloys in the light emitting layer of organic light emitting devices affords improvements in efficiency and service lifetimes (¶ [0014]).
48. 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 form an organic alloy via a pretreatment procedure comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) in the light emitting layer of the modified device of Ham, based on the teaching of Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve device efficiencies and service lifetimes, as taught by Park (¶ [0014]).
49. Per claims 13, the organic light emitting device of Ham, modified by Liu and Park, comprising compound 1-12 (Ham) and compound D-10 (Liu) as an organic alloy in the light emitting layer of the device of Ham reads on the limitation therein.
Conclusion
50. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandon J. Cooper whose telephone number is (571)272-0005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
/B.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights