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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species (A1) in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 claims the second compounds of Formulae 2-1 to 2-5, and 2-11 to 2-14. However, it appears that those compound are not encompassed by the Formula 2a of the claim 1 because the substituents (Ar4)b4 and (Ar6)b6 do not exist (i.e. b4 and b6 each requires to be 1, 2, or 3; and Ar4 and Ar6 cannot be hydrogen). It is unclear whether Applicant claims the second compounds represented by Formulae 2-1 to 2-5, and 2-11 to 2-14.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the claim 11 claims the compounds represented by Formulae 2-1 to 2-5, and 2-11 to 2-14, regardless the formulae are not encompassed by Formula 2a (i.e. a prior art having same structure as at least one of Formulae 2-1 to 2-5, and 2-11 to 2-14, reads on all the limitation of claim 11).
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.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 claims the third compounds of Formulae 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9. However, it appears that those compound are not encompassed by the Formula 3 of the claim 1. It is unclear whether Applicant claims the third compounds represented by Formulae 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the claim 12 claims the compounds represented by Formulae 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9, regardless the formulae are not encompassed by Formula 3 (i.e. a prior art having same structure as at least one of Formulae 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9, reads on all the limitation of claim 12).
Additionally, claim 12 claims the third compounds of Formulae 3-4 to 3-6. However, it appears that those compound are not encompassed by the Formula 3 of the claim 1 because the substituents (Ar11)b11 do not exist (i.e. b11 requires to be 1, 2, or 3; and Ar11 cannot be hydrogen). It is unclear whether Applicant claims the third compounds represented by Formulae 3-4 to 3-6.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the claim 12 claims the compounds represented by Formulae 3-4 to 3-6, regardless the formulae are not encompassed by Formula 3 (i.e. a prior art having same structure as at least one of Formulae 3-4 to 3-6, reads on all the limitation of claim 12).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 claims the second compounds of Formulae 2-1 to 2-5, and 2-11 to 2-14. However, it appears that those compound are not encompassed by the Formula 2a of the claim 1 because the substituents (Ar4)b4 and (Ar6)b6 do not exist (i.e. b4 and b6 each requires to be 1, 2, or 3; and Ar4 and Ar6 cannot be hydrogen). Currently claim 11 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 claims the third compound of Formulae 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9. However, it appears that those compound are not encompassed by the Formula 3 of the claim 1.
Additionally, claim 12 claims the third compounds of Formulae 3-4 to 3-6. However, it appears that those compound are not encompassed by the Formula 3 of the claim 1 because the substituents (Ar11)b11 do not exist (i.e. b11 requires to be 1, 2, or 3; and Ar11 cannot be hydrogen).
Currently claim 12 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 1-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2023/022480 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2022/0255009 A1, hereafter Ryu) and Otsu et al. (US 8,192,847 B2, hereafter Otsu).
Regarding claims 1-10 and 13-15, Lee discloses a light emitting device comprising an organic layer containing a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 ([8]-[27]). Lee exemplifies Compound 1-261 ([231]) as the Formula 1 and Compound 2-43 as the Formula 2 ([236]).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-261 of Lee has identical structure as Applicant’s third compound of Formula 3.
Lee does not exemplify a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 1-261 and the Compound 2-43; however, Lee does teach that the compounds of Formulas 1 and 2 can be used as host materials of a light emitting device ([77]).
Lee teaches the structure of a light emitting device (Example 294 in Table 11 and [440]-[444]) comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 1-261, Compound 2-93, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission color is green.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Lee by substituting Compound 2-93 with Compound 2-43 of Lee, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified compounds represented by Formula 2 of Lee in the device of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Lee comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 1-261, Compound 2-43, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission color is green.
The device is a green light emitting device, not a white light emitting device.
Ryu discloses a white light emitting device comprising an anthracene compound and a pyrene compound, wherein at least one of them is deuterated ([0011], [0015]).
Ryu teaches the structure of white light emitting device (Fig. 6, [0237]) comprising a first light emitting unit (LEU, 530) containing a first emission layer (EML, 520), a charge generation layer (CGL, 580), a second LEU (550) containing a second EML (540), a CGL, a third LEU (570) containing a third EML (560).
Ryu teaches the first and the third EML can be the blue emitting layer of the invention ([0241], [0251]), and a second EML can be a stack of red and green emitting layers ([0261], [0249]).
Ryu exemplifies a pyrene compound (Dopant 1 on page 65), wherein an emission layer comprising the pyrene compound as a dopant emits blue light (Example 1 in Table 1, [0152], [0161]). Ryu exemplifies deuterated anthracene compounds ([0091]). Ryu exemplifies a compound (the second compound on page 18, hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image2.png
264
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound A of Ryu has identical structure as Applicant’s first compound of Formula 1 and the specific embodiment, Applicant’s Compound 1-12 of the instant claim 10, wherein deuterium substitution ratio is greater than 30% and less than 50%.
Ryu teaches that the composition comprising anthracene and pyrene compounds of Ryu, provides improved emitting efficiency and lifespan for the device comprising the composition ([0019]-[0021], [0059]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Lee by incorporating blue emitting layers comprising Compound A of Ryu and Dopant 1 of Ryu to make a white light emitting device, as taught by Lee and Ryu.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device having improved emitting efficiency and lifetime based on the teaching of Ryu.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting unit containing a first emission layer (Compound A of Ryu as a first host and Dopant 1 of Ryu as a first dopant), a CGL, a second light emitting unit containing a second emission layer (Compound 2-43 of Lee as a second host, Compound 1-261 of Lee as a third host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a second dopant), a CGL, a third light emitting unit, and a second electrode.
The Compound 2-43 of Lee has similar structure as Applicant’s second compound of Formula 2a. The only difference is that the substituents at the position corresponding to Ar4 and Ar6 of Formula 2a are not a carbocyclic or heterocyclic group; however, Lee does teach that the substituents at the position corresponding to the Rd and Re of Formula 2 of Lee can be each an aryl or heteroaryl group ([63]). Lee exemplifies a phenyl group as the aryl group ([102]).
Otsu discloses a carbazole compound used for a light emitting device, wherein the position 3 of the carbazole group is substituted by an aryl or heteroaryl group (col. 3, line 1-39) (see the part enclosed by dashed circles in the figure below). Otsu exemplifies a phenyl group substituted to the position 3 of carbazole of the compound (H-2 in col. 7-8).
PNG
media_image3.png
197
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Otsu compares a light emitting device comprising a substituted carbazole compound with a device comprising an unsubstituted carbazole compound (i.e. mCP), otherwise same (Table 1). That is, the only difference between mCP and Compound H-2 is the phenyl group substituted to the position 3 of carbazole. Otsu teaches that the light emitting device comprising the substituted carbazole compound provides high efficiency and longer lifetime (Table 1, col. 54, line 38-40).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2-43 of Lee by incorporating the position 4 of each carbazole groups with a phenyl group, as taught by Lee and Otsu.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the light emitting device comprising the compound with high efficiency and longer lifetime, based on the teaching of Otsu.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution the substituents at the positions corresponding to Rd and Re in the compound of Formula 2 of Lee with each a phenyl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image4.png
354
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Otsu, which has identical structure as Applicant’s second compound of Formula 2a, wherein deuterium substitution ratio is greater than 30% and less than 50%.
The modification also provides Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu and Otsu comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting unit containing a first emission layer (Compound A of Ryu as a first host and Dopant 1 of Ryu as a first dopant), a CGL, a second light emitting unit containing a second emission layer (Compound of Lee as modified by Otsu as a second host, Compound 1-261 of Lee as a third host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a second dopant), a CGL, a third light emitting unit, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-10 and 13-15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2023/022480 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2022/0255009 A1) and Otsu et al. (US 8,192,847 B2) as applied to claims 1-10 and 13-15 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao).
Regarding claim 16, the Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu and Otsu reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first light emitting unit containing a first emission layer (Compound A of Ryu as a first host and Dopant 1 of Ryu as a first dopant), a CGL, a second light emitting unit containing a second emission layer (Compound of Lee as modified by Otsu as a second host, Compound 1-261 of Lee as a third host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a second dopant), a CGL, a third light emitting unit, and a second electrode.
The device is a white light emitting device which does not comprise multiple white light emitting units (i.e. there is a single white light emitting unit comprises two blue layer, a green layer, and a red layer).
Liao discloses a tandem white light emitting device comprising multiple white light emitting units (Fig. 3).
Liao teaches that the tandem white light emitting device of Liao provides high luminance efficiency and high brightness ([0009]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu and Otsu by substituting the device structure to make a stacking multiple white light emitting units of Liao, wherein each of the white light emitting unit comprises the blue emission layer (Compound A of Ryu and Dopant 1 of Ryu) and the green emission layer (Compound of Lee as modified by Otsu, Compound 1-261 of Lee, and Ir(ppy)3), as taught by Lee and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high luminance efficiency and high brightness based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu, Otsu, and Liao comprising a first electrode, a white light emitting unit, CGL, a white light emitting unit, CGL, a white light emitting unit, CGL, a white light emitting unit, and a second electrode, wherein each white light emitting unit comprises a blue light emitting unit (Compound A of Ryu and Dopant 1 of Ryu) and the green emitting unit (Compound of Lee as modified by Otsu, Compound 1-261 of Lee, and Ir(ppy)3).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2023/022480 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2022/0255009 A1) and Otsu et al. (US 8,192,847 B2) as applied to claims 1-10 and 13-15 above, further in view of Choe et al. (US 2020/0381484 A1, hereafter Choe).
Regarding claims 17-20, the Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu and Otsu reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first light emitting unit containing a first emission layer (Compound A of Ryu as a first host and Dopant 1 of Ryu as a first dopant), a CGL, a second light emitting unit containing a second emission layer (Compound of Lee as modified by Otsu as a second host, Compound 1-261 of Lee as a third host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a second dopant), a CGL, a third light emitting unit, and a second electrode.
Lee in view of Ryu and Otsu does not disclose a specific display panel comprising the Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu and Otsu.
Choe discloses a display apparatus (“display device” in [0002]) such as a television.
The display apparatus comprises a display panel ([0041], Fig. 11-12) containing a substrate (BL1), a light emitting device (EDL1 to EDL3), a capping layer (TFE), a color conversion layer (CCL), a color filter layer (CF1 to CF3), a thin film transistor (TR1 to TR3), wherein the color conversion layer comprises a quantum dot layer (QD1); the thin film transistor includes a source electrode (OE) and a drain electrode (IE), and the first electrode (EL1-1) of the light emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode ([0056], [0073] [0123], [0142], [0156]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu and Otsu by incorporating it into a display apparatus, as taught by Choe.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a display device such as a television based on the teaching of Choe.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of light emitting devices in a display apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a display apparatus comprises a display panel containing a substrate, the Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ruy and Otsu, a capping layer, a color conversion layer, a color filter layer, a thin film transistor, wherein the color conversion layer comprises a quantum dot layer; the thin film transistor includes a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2023/022480 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2022/0255009 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a light emitting device comprising an organic layer containing a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 ([8]-[27]). Lee exemplifies Compound 1-261 ([231]) as the Formula 1 and Compound 2-43 as the Formula 2 ([236]).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-261 of Lee has identical structure as Applicant’s third compound of Formula 3.
Lee does not exemplify a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 1-261 and the Compound 2-43; however, Lee does teach that the compounds of Formulas 1 and 2 can be used as host materials of a light emitting device ([77]).
Lee teaches the structure of a light emitting device (Example 294 in Table 11 and [440]-[444]) comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 1-261, Compound 2-93, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission color is green.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Lee by substituting Compound 2-93 with Compound 2-43 of Lee, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified compounds represented by Formula 2 of Lee in the device of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Lee comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 1-261, Compound 2-43, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission color is green.
The device is a green light emitting device, not a white light emitting device.
Ryu discloses a white light emitting device comprising an anthracene compound and a pyrene compound, wherein at least one of them is deuterated ([0011], [0015]).
Ryu teaches the structure of white light emitting device (Fig. 6, [0237]) comprising a first light emitting unit (LEU, 530) containing a first emission layer (EML, 520), a charge generation layer (CGL, 580), a second LEU (550) containing a second EML (540), a CGL, a third LEU (570) containing a third EML (560).
Ryu teaches the first and the third EML can be the blue emitting layer of the invention ([0241], [0251]), and a second EML can be a stack of red and green emitting layers ([0261], [0249]).
Ryu exemplifies a pyrene compound (Dopant 1 on page 65), wherein an emission layer comprising the pyrene compound as a dopant emits blue light (Example 1 in Table 1, [0152], [0161]). Ryu exemplifies deuterated anthracene compounds ([0091]). Ryu exemplifies a compound (the second compound on page 18, hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image2.png
264
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound A of Ryu has identical structure as Applicant’s first compound of Formula 1 and the specific embodiment, Applicant’s Compound 1-12 of the instant claim 10, wherein deuterium substitution ratio is greater than 30% and less than 50%.
Ryu teaches that the composition comprising anthracene and pyrene compounds of Ryu, provides improved emitting efficiency and lifespan for the device comprising the composition ([0019]-[0021], [0059]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Lee by incorporating blue emitting layers comprising Compound A of Ryu and Dopant 1 of Ryu to make a white light emitting device, as taught by Lee and Ryu.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device having improved emitting efficiency and lifetime based on the teaching of Ryu.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting unit containing a first emission layer (Compound A of Ryu as a first host and Dopant 1 of Ryu as a first dopant), a CGL, a second light emitting unit containing a second emission layer (Compound 2-43 of Lee as a second host, Compound 1-261 of Lee as a third host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a second dopant), a CGL, a third light emitting unit, and a second electrode.
PNG
media_image5.png
383
609
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In the device, the Compound 2-43 of Lee has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 2-5. The only difference is the substitution position of the N-biphenyl carbazolyl group in the N-phenyl carbazolyl group. While the Compound 2-43 of Lee has an N-biphenyl carbazolyl group is substituted to the position 3 of the N-phenyl carbazolyl group, Applicant’s Compound 2-5 has an N-biphenyl carbazolyl group is substituted to the position 2 of the N-phenyl carbazolyl group.
However, the Compound 2-43 of Lee is a position isomer with similar compound in which an N-biphenyl carbazolyl group is substituted to the position 2 of the N-phenyl carbazolyl group.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Compound 2-43 of Lee shown above such that the N-biphenyl carbazolyl group is substituted to the position 2 of the N-phenyl carbazolyl group. A compound in which an N-biphenyl carbazolyl group is substituted to the position 2 of the N-phenyl carbazolyl group would represent a position isomer of the Compound 2-43 of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Light emitting device of Lee as modified by Ryu (2) comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting unit containing a first emission layer (Compound A of Ryu as a first host and Dopant 1 of Ryu as a first dopant), a CGL, a second light emitting unit containing a second emission layer (Applicant’s Compound 2-5 as a second host, Compound 1-261 of Lee as a third host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a second dopant), a CGL, a third light emitting unit, and a second electrode.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2023/055001 A1, hereafter Choi) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2022/0255009 A1) and Otsu et al. (US 8,192,847 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Choi discloses a light emitting device comprising an organic layer containing a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 ([10]-[15]). Choi exemplifies Compound 1-2 ([203]) as the Formula 1 and Compound 2-7 as the Formula 2 ([208]).
PNG
media_image6.png
317
548
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2-7 of Choi has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment, Formula 3-7 of the instant claim 12.
Choi does not exemplify a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 1-2 and the Compound 2-7; however, Choi does teach that the compounds of Formulas 1 and 2 can be used as host materials of a light emitting device ([218]).
Choi teaches the structure of a light emitting device (Example 20 in Table 13 and [335]-[337]) comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 1-2, Compound 2-13, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission color is green.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Choi by substituting Compound 2-13 with Compound 2-7 of Choi, as taught by Choi.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified compounds represented by Formula 2 of Choi in the device of Choi would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Choi comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 1-2, Compound 2-7, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission color is green.
The device is a green light emitting device, not a white light emitting device.
Ryu discloses a white light emitting device comprising an anthracene compound and a pyrene compound, wherein at least one of them is deuterated ([0011], [0015]).
Ryu teaches the structure of white light emitting device (Fig. 6, [0237]) comprising a first light emitting unit (LEU, 530) containing a first emission layer (EML, 520), a charge generation layer (CGL, 580), a second LEU (550) containing a second EML (540), a CGL, a third LEU (570) containing a third EML (560).
Ryu teaches the first and the third EML can be the blue emitting layer of the invention ([0241], [0251]), and a second EML can be a stack of red and green emitting layers ([0261], [0249]).
Ryu exemplifies a pyrene compound (Dopant 1 on page 65), wherein an emission layer comprising the pyrene compound as a dopant emits blue light (Example 1 in Table 1, [0152], [0161]). Ryu exemplifies deuterated anthracene compounds ([0091]). Ryu exemplifies a compound (the second compound on page 18, hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image2.png
264
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound A of Ryu has identical structure as Applicant’s first compound of Formula 1 and the specific embodiment, Applicant’s Compound 1-12 of the instant claim 10, wherein deuterium substitution ratio is greater than 30% and less than 50%.
Ryu teaches that the composition comprising anthracene and pyrene compounds of Ryu, provides improved emitting efficiency and lifespan for the device comprising the composition ([0019]-[0021], [0059]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Choi by incorporating blue emitting layers comprising Compound A of Ryu and Dopant 1 of Ryu to make a white light emitting device, as taught by Choi and Ryu.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device having improved emitting efficiency and lifetime based on the teaching of Ryu.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Choi as modified by Ryu comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting unit containing a first emission layer (Compound A of Ryu as a first host and Dopant 1 of Ryu as a first dopant), a CGL, a second light emitting unit containing a second emission layer (Compound 1-2 of Choi as a second host, Compound 2-7 of Choi as a third host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a second dopant), a CGL, a third light emitting unit, and a second electrode.
PNG
media_image7.png
269
535
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-2 of Choi has similar structure as Applicant’s second compound of Formula 2a. The only difference is that the substituents at the position corresponding to Ar4 and Ar6 of Formula 2a are not a carbocyclic or heterocyclic group; however, Choi does teach that the substituents at the position corresponding to the R3 and R13 of Formula 1 of Choi can be each an aryl or heteroaryl group ([19]). Choi exemplifies a phenyl group as the aryl group ([62]).
Otsu discloses a carbazole compound used for a light emitting device, wherein the position 3 of the carbazole group is substituted by an aryl or heteroaryl group (col. 3, line 1-39) (see the part enclosed by dashed circles in the figure below). Otsu exemplifies a phenyl group substituted to the position 3 of carbazole of the compound (H-2 in col. 7-8).
PNG
media_image3.png
197
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Otsu compares a light emitting device comprising a substituted carbazole compound with a device comprising an unsubstituted carbazole compound (i.e. mCP), otherwise same (Table 1). That is, the only difference between mCP and Compound H-2 is the phenyl group substituted to the position 3 of carbazole. Otsu teaches that the light emitting device comprising the substituted carbazole compound provides high efficiency and longer lifetime (Table 1, col. 54, line 38-40).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-2 of Choi by incorporating phenyl groups to the position 3 of carbazole groups (i.e. the positions corresponding to R3 and R13 of Formula 1 of Choi), as taught by Choi and Otsu.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the light emitting device comprising the compound with high efficiency and longer lifetime, based on the teaching of Otsu.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution the substituents at the positions corresponding to R3 and R13 in the compound of Formula 1 of Choi with each a phenyl group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image8.png
361
688
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Choi as modified by Otsu, which has identical structure as Applicant’s second compound of Formula 2a, wherein deuterium substitution ratio is greater than 30% and less than 50%.
The modification provides Light emitting device of Choi as modified by Ryu and Otsu comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting unit containing a first emission layer (Compound A of Ryu as a first host and Dopant 1 of Ryu as a first dopant), a CGL, a second light emitting unit containing a second emission layer (Compound of Choi as modified by Otsu as a second host, Compound 2-7 of Choi as a third host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a second dopant), a CGL, a third light emitting unit, and a second electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights