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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 06/07/2021.
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).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1–4, 6–8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Diev et al. (US 2018/0062082 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 11/08/2023, hereinafter “Diev”).
Regarding Claims 1, 6–8, and 12, Diev discloses the organic light emitting device of Example 14 [Table 3] including an anode, a short reduction layer, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer 1, a hole transport layer 2, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0847] – [0856]. The light emitting layer comprises Compound II-16 [0809] as a host material [Table 3]. Compound II-16 reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
294
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
184
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A1 and A2 are each a C1 alkyl group (methyl),
R1 to R3, R5, and R7 to R10 are each hydrogen,
R4 and R6 are each represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 wherein:
L1’ is a direct bond,
L2 is a C6 arylene group (phenylene),
Ar2 and Ar3 are each a C6 aryl group (phenyl),
m’, n, and p are each 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Compound II-16 reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
323
210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A1 and A2 are each a C1 alkyl group (methyl),
R1 to R3, R5, and R11 are each hydrogen,
a is 4,
R4 and R6 are each represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 wherein:
L1’ is a direct bond,
L2 is a C6 arylene group (phenylene),
Ar2 and Ar3 are each a C6 aryl group (phenyl),
m’, n, and p are each 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Compound II-16 does not comprise Chemical Formula 1-2 and therefore does not comprise Ar1. Therefore, Applicant’s further limitation of Ar1 does not apply to Compound II-16.
Regarding Claim 4, Compound II-16 comprises a deuterium content of 0%.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2008/0100208 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 11/08/2023, hereinafter “Shin”).
Regarding Claim 1, Shin discloses Formula 3 [0046] which reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
294
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
96
210
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
266
226
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A1 and A2 are each a C6 aryl group (phenyl),
R1 to R5 and R7 to R10 are each hydrogen,
R6 are each represented by Chemical Formula 1-2 wherein:
L1 is a direct bond,
Ar1 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl),
m is 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Compound 3 comprises a deuterium content of 0%
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.
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 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diev et al. (US 2018/0062082 A1) as applied to claims 1–4, 6–8, and 12 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Diev teaches a compound represented by Diev’s Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c can be used as a hole transport material in a device [0409]. Compound II-16 is a compound represented by Diev’s Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c [0407].
However, Diev fails to disclose an organic light emitting device comprising Compound II-16 in the hole transport layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound II-16 in the hole transport layer of the organic light emitting device taught by Diev because Diev teaches compounds represented by Diev’s Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c can be used as a hole transport material in a device.
Regarding Claim 10, Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c can be used as a electron transport material in a device [0414]. Compound II-16 is a compound represented by Diev’s Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c [0407].
However, Diev fails to disclose an organic light emitting device comprising Compound II-16 in the electron transport layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound II-16 in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device taught by Diev because Diev teaches compounds represented by Diev’s Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c can be used as an electron transport material in a device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diev et al. (US 2018/0062082 A1) as applied to claim 1–4, 6–10, and 12 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0380568 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 5, Compound II-16 is represented by Diev’s Formula II-a (shown below) wherein Amino 2 is not present. Diev teaches in some embodiments an amino nitrogen is bonded to position 5 on the fused ring core as defined in the fused ring core numbering shown below ([0310] and [0094]).
PNG
media_image7.png
270
264
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
401
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
306
294
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Compound II-16 fails to read on Applicant’s Compound 002 because it has two amino groups instead of one amino group.
Kim teaches attaching a different number of amine groups to a compound can adjust the HOMO energy level and thereby the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer may be adjusted to have a proper difference in the HOMO energy level from that of the emissive layer, and thus, light emission inside the emissive layer may be facilitated due to an increase in charge balance [0174].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Compound II-16 to only have only one amine group in position 5, as taught by Diev. The motivation to do so would be to adjust the HOMO energy level and thereby ensure a proper difference in the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer with the emissive layer to increase charge balance, as taught by Kim.
The modified version of Compound II-16, as described above (hereinafter “Modified II-16”), is identical to Applicant’s Compound 002 (shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
356
190
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
271
138
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diev et al. (US 2018/0062082 A1) as applied to claim 1–4, 6–10, and 12 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (Advanced Display Technology: Next Generation Self-Emitting Displays, Springer, 2021, hereinafter “Kang”).
Regarding Claim 11, Diev teaches the compounds represented by Diev’s Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c is an electroactive material [0012]. Compound II-16 is a compound represented by Diev’s Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c [0407]. Therefore, Compound II-16 is an electroactive material. Diev further defines an electroactive material as a material which may conduct, inject, transport, or block a charge, where the charge can be either an electron or a hole [0082].
However, Diev fails to disclose an organic light emitting device including a hole blocking layer wherein the electron blocking layer comprises Compound II-16.
Kang teaches organic light emitting devices typically contain an electron blocking layer to achieve very high efficiencies [section 2.2.3, pg. 10, paragraph 2]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an electron blocking layer to the organic light emitting device taught by Diev. The motivation to do so would have been to achieve a very high efficiency organic light emitting device, as taught by Kang.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Compound II-16 in the electron blocking layer of the organic light emitting device because Diev teaches compounds represented by Diev’s Formula II-a, Formula II-b, or Formula II-c may be used to block electrons.
Claims 6–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2008/0100208 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above.
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, Shin teaches compounds represented by Shin’s Formula 2a are suitable as a material constituting an organic layer interdisposed between a first electrode and a second electrode of an organic light emitting device [0037]. Formula 3 is a compound represented by Shin’s Formula 2a [0046]. Shin teaches an organic light emitting device includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0007]. Shin further teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a compound of present disclosure results in a low operating voltage, good efficiency, and good brightness [abstract].
However, Shin fails to disclose an exemplified organic light emitting device comprising Formula 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Formula 3 in an organic layer in an organic light emitting device, as taught by Shin. One would be motivated to use Formula 3 in an organic light emitting device based on the low operating voltage, good efficiency, and good brightness benefits, as taught by Shin.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the organic light emitting device include an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode since Shin teaches an organic light emitting device includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Shin teaches the compounds represented by Shin’s Formula 2a are suitable to be used in an emitting layer, a hole injection layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, or a hole transport layer [0037]. Additionally, a compound represented by Shin’s Formula 2a may be used as a host material [0037].
However, Shin fails to disclose an exemplified organic light emitting device comprising Formula 3 as a host material in the light emitting layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Formula 3 as the host material in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device since Shin teaches Formula 3 may suitably be used as a host material in the light emitting layer. One would be motivated to use Formula 3 as a host material in an organic light emitting device based on the low operating voltage, good efficiency, and good brightness benefits, as taught by Shin.
Regarding Claim 9, Shin teaches the compounds represented by Shin’s Formula 2a are suitable to be used in an emitting layer, a hole injection layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, or a hole transport layer [0037].
However, Shin fails to disclose an exemplified organic light emitting device comprising Formula 3 in the hole transport layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Formula 3 in the hole transport layer of an organic light emitting device since Shin teaches Formula 3 may suitably be used in the hole transport layer. One would be motivated to use Formula 3 in the hole transport layer of an organic light emitting device based on the low operating voltage, good efficiency, and good brightness benefits, as taught by Shin.
Regarding Claim 10, Shin teaches the compounds represented by Shin’s Formula 2a are suitable to be used in an emitting layer, a hole injection layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, or a hole transport layer [0037].
However, Shin fails to disclose an exemplified organic light emitting device comprising Formula 3 in the electron transport layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Formula 3 in the electron transport layer of an organic light emitting device since Shin teaches Formula 3 may suitably be used in the electron transport layer. One would be motivated to use Formula 3 in the electron transport layer of an organic light emitting device based on the low operating voltage, good efficiency, and good brightness benefits, as taught by Shin.
Regarding Claim 11, Shin teaches the compounds represented by Shin’s Formula 2a are suitable to be used in an emitting layer, a hole injection layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, or a hole transport layer [0037].
However, Shin fails to disclose an exemplified organic light emitting device comprising Formula 3 in the hole blocking layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Formula 3 in the hole blocking layer of an organic light emitting device since Shin teaches Formula 3 may suitably be used in the hole blocking layer. One would be motivated to use Formula 3 in the hole blocking layer of an organic light emitting device based on the low operating voltage, good efficiency, and good brightness benefits, as taught by Shin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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.
/J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
