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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0199911 A1) in view of Tiantian et al. (CN113651826A, relying on WIPO English translation, attached).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an organic light emitting device (Test Ex. 15, Table 7, para. [0196] – [0198]), comprising: an anode (ITO anode, para. [0196]); a cathode (Al cathode, para. [0198]); and a light emitting layer (para. [0197]) that is provided between the anode and the cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound (compound P1-81) of the following formula Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Chemical Formula 2
A1 is Chemical Formula 2-1
A2 to A10 are hydrogen atoms
Wherein the claimed Chemical Formula 2-1
L’1 and L’2 are a single bond
L’3 is a unsubstituted C6 arylene
Ar’1 is an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl containing one S atom
Ar’2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
In Test Ex. 15, Lee teaches does not specifically teach a second compound that reads on Chemical Formula 1. Lee teaches a second compound in the light emitting layer, compound 3-140, a triazine derivative. Compound 3-140 differs from the claimed formula where one of Y1 to Y7 is N. However, compound 3-140 is a specific compound of Formula 2 (para. [0010] and [0085]) of Lee. In Formula 2, Lee teaches that L4 to L6 may be a single bond, an arylene, or heterocyclic compound. Additionally, Lee teaches that Ar4 to Ar6 may be a heterocyclic group consisting of O and N. Additionally, Lee teaches that compounds of Formula 2 are not limited to those disclosed in their publication.
PNG
media_image2.png
439
1212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tiantian et al. teaches nitrogen-containing compounds of Formula 1 for organic electroluminescent devices that reduces the driving voltage of the devices and improves their performance (abstract). Tiantian teaches that compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
338
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are used in the organic light emitting layer (pg. 53, line 24). Tiantian teaches that compound 657 as one of the specific compounds of Formula 1. This compounds reads on Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
768
1121
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Chemical Formula 1
Y1 to Y2 and Y4 to Y7 are CR
Y3 is N
R is hydrogen
L1 and L2 are single bonds
L3 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group containing O
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the triazine compound of Lee with one of the triazine compounds of Tiantian. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a second host in the light emitting layer of the OLED of Lee and possess the benefits of reduced driving voltage of the devices and improved performance of the devices taught by Tiantian. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 657 of Tiantian, because it would have been choosing a triazine host, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second host in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Tiantian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising triazine hosts having reduced driving voltage of the devices and improved performance of the devices taught by Tiantian in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee further teaches wherein each R is a hydrogen.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee further teaches wherein L1 and L2 are single bonds, and L3 is
PNG
media_image5.png
67
92
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
596
1210
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee further teaches wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted dibenzofuranyl and Ar2 is an unsubstituted phenyl (since Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted, the limitation of “at least one deuterium” is not required).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee further teaches wherein the compound of Chemical formula 1 is
PNG
media_image7.png
747
577
media_image7.png
Greyscale
which is compound
PNG
media_image8.png
419
405
media_image8.png
Greyscale
of instant application (eight compound of page 44 of claim 5 of instant application).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee further teaches wherein L’1 and L’2 are a single bond and L’3 is a phenylene.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee further teaches wherein Ar’1 is an unsubstituted dibenzothiophenyl and Ar’2 is a unsubstituted phenyl (since Ar’1 and Ar’2 are unsubstituted, the limitation of “at least one deuterium” is not required).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches the organic light emitting device of Claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 7.
In test Ex. 15, Lee does not teach wherein the compound of Chemical Formula 2 is one of the compounds disclosed in claim 5.
However, Lee teaches that compound P1-81 is a compound of Formula 1 (para. [0084]), and the compounds of Formula 1 and that any of the compounds of Formula 1 are suitable for the first host of the organic light emitting device (para. [0010]).
Lee teaches compound P1-87
PNG
media_image9.png
518
549
media_image9.png
Greyscale
which is compound
PNG
media_image10.png
284
397
media_image10.png
Greyscale
of instant application (second compound of page 110 of claim 8 of instant application).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute compound P1-81 with compound P1-87. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the first host in the light emitting layer of the OLED of Lee and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose compound P1-87 of Lee, because it would have been choosing a suitable derivative, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the first host in the light emitting layer of the OLED device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compound P1-87 having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights