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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1. The claim language “provided that when Ar21 to Ar23, each independently, comprise fluorene, Ar21 to Ar23, each independently, are represented by the following formula 1-A, and at least one of Ar21 to Ar23 is represented by the following formula 1-A” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if at least one of Ar21 to Ar23 is represented by formula 1-A when each of Ar21 to Ar23 comprise fluorene, or if each of Ar21 to Ar23 is represented by formula 1-A when each of Ar21 to Ar23 comprise fluorene.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and examiner has interpreted the claim language as at least one of Ar21 to Ar23 is represented by formula 1-A when Ar21 to Ar23 each comprise fluorene.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency upon indefinite claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (Patentscope English machine translation of KR 20200017727 A) in view of Fennimore (US 20170200893 A1).
Regarding claims 1-10, Park teaches a plurality of host compounds that when mixed, improve the hole/electronic control between organic electronic device components, thereby lowering the driving voltage of the device and improve the luminous efficiency and lifespan (Park, page 4).
Park also teaches an organic electronic element including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer formed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic material layer includes a phosphorescent light emitting layer, and the host of the phosphorescent light emitting layer includes a first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, a second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2, and a third compound represented by Chemical Formula 3 (Park, page 7).
Park also teaches compound 3-30 (Park, page 38), shown below, as a specific embodiment of Chemical Formula 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
247
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park further teaches compound 2-30 (Park, page 28), shown below as a specific embodiment of Chemical Formula 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
283
243
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park fails to teach a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising an organic layer further comprising compound 3-30 and compound 2-30.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent are before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 3-30 and compound 2-30 of Park, because one would have been choosing from a list of suitable compounds represented by Chemical Formula 3 and Chemical Formula 2 and taught by Park, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in an organic electroluminescent device and possessing the benefits taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce devices comprising the compounds represented by Park’s Chemical Formula 3 and Chemical Formula 2 having the benefits taught by Park in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 2-30 fails to include deuterium; however, Park teaches that compounds represented by Chemical Formula 2 may be preferably represented by Chemical Formula 2-B, wherein in Chemical Formula 2-B, the R groups may each independently be deuterium (Park, pages 17-18).
PNG
media_image3.png
270
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fennimore teaches deuterated materials can be less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons. Have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime compared to their non-deuterated analogs (Fennimore, page 5, paragraph 098). Fennimore also teaches deuterated materials may be 10-100% deuterated (Fennimore, page 5, paragraph 097).
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 deuterate compound 2-30 of Park such that it is 10% to 100% deuterated, to provide a compound that is less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime, as taught by Fennimore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds comprising deuterium having the benefits taught by Fennimore in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per claim 1, compound 3-30 reads on instant claim 1, wherein X1 to X3 are -N=, Ar21 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, Ar22 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl group, and Ar23 is a fluorene represented by formula 1-A, wherein formula 1-A, L21 is a single bond, R11 and R12 are independently an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group, and R21 to R28 represent hydrogen.
PNG
media_image1.png
247
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
167
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
171
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified compound 2-30 reads on instant claim 1, wherein A1 is a C12 aryl group unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium, A2 may be a C6 aryl group unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium, X16 and X21 are linked to each other to form a single bond, and X11 to X15, X17 to X20, and X22 to X26 represent hydrogen or deuterium.
PNG
media_image6.png
250
392
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Park fails to teach a specific compound represented by Chemical Formula 2, such that it reads on the limitation of instant claim 2, wherein a compound represented by instant formula 2 at least one of X11, X18, X19, and X26 is deuterium.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate compound 2-30 of Park such that it reads on instant formula 2, wherein at least one of X11, X18, X19, and X26 is deuterium as required by instant claim 2, because it would have been choosing to deuterate specific locations of compound 2-30 of Park, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Park and possessing the benefits taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising deuterium having the benefits taught by Fennimore in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per claim 3, as discussed above, the modified compound 2-30 is 10% to 100% deuterated. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per claim 4, Park fails to teach a compound of Chemical Formula 2 that reads on instant claim 4, wherein the deuterium substitution rate in X11 to X26 is 25% to 100%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate compound 2-30 of Park such that it reads on instant formula 2, wherein the deuterium substitution rate of X11 to X26 is 25% to 100% as required by instant claim 4, because it would have been choosing to deuterate specific locations of compound 2-30 of Park, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Park and possessing the benefits taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising deuterium having the benefits taught by Fennimore in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per claim 5, modified compound 2-30, as described above reads on formula 2-1 of instant claim 5, wherein A1 may be a C12 aryl group unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium, A2 is a C6 aryl group unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium, X16 and X21 are linked to each other to form a single bond, and X11 to X15, X17 to X20, and X22 to X26 represent hydrogen or deuterium.
PNG
media_image7.png
321
428
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per claim 6, modified compound 2-30, as described above reads on instant claim 6, wherein X11 to X26 are defined as described above, A1 is a biphenyl group unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium, and A2 is a phenyl group unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium.
Per claim 7, compound 3-30, as described above reads on formula 1-3 of instant claim 7, wherein X1 to X3 are -N=, Ar21 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, Ar22 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl group, and Ar23 is a fluorene represented by formula 1-A, wherein formula 1-A, L21 is a single bond, R11 and R12 are independently an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group, and R21 to R28 represent hydrogen.
PNG
media_image1.png
247
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
237
372
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Per claim 8, compound 3-30, as described above reads on compound H1-5 of instant claim 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
247
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
259
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per claim 9, modified compound 2-30 as described above, reads on compound H2-2 of instant claim 9.
Regarding claim 10. Park in view of Fennimore teach the organic electroluminescent device comprising compound 3-30 and modified compound 2-30, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEILI DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1667. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH: 7:00AM-4:00PM, F: 7:00AM-10:00AM.
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, 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.
/K.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights