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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on August 24, 2022.
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on July 7, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 7, 2023 and July 17, 2026 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Some of the compounds in the instant specification, especially those starting on Page 57 are low resolution, which makes it difficult to discern the atoms and the bond structure of the compounds.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum (WO2021020946A1, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19, Geum teaches:
A light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode disposed on the first electrode and an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0708]: “In an organic light-emitting device according to one embodiment of the present specification, the first electrode is an anode and the second electrode is a cathode, the first organic layer is a light-emitting layer, and the second organic layer is provided between the second electrode and the first organic layer.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound represented by Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
246
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Geum teaches that the organic layer comprises a light-emitting layer and the light-emitting layer comprises a compound represented by chemical formula 2 ([0710]). Geum teaches that Chemical Formula 2 has a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
256
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0014]). A particular compound within the scope of Formula 2 taught by Geum is
PNG
media_image3.png
96
134
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on page 309, which does not contain the claimed substituents on the nitrogen atoms. However, Geum also teaches that compounds of Formula 2 include
PNG
media_image4.png
88
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on page 298, where the substituents on the nitrogen atom include a dibenzofuran group substituted with a phenyl ring in the para-position with respect to the oxygen atom. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the biphenyl substituents off the first compound of Geum with a dibenzofuran group substituted with a phenyl ring as shown in the second compound of Geum and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 and X2 are O; R1 is a substituted heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms; R2 and R3 are an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; R4 to R7 are hydrogen; n1, n2 and n3 are an integer of 1. The compound is represented by Formula 2-1 in claims 2 and 14, Formula 4-1 in claims 4 and 16, and Formula 5-2 in claims 5 and 17.)
Geum includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Geum being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of organic light-emitting devices with low driving voltage, excellent efficiency and excellent lifespan ([0039]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Geum teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Geum as Geum demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum (WO2021020946A1, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Yoon (US20200308209A1).
As per claims 8 – 11, Geum does not teach:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a second compound represented by Formula HT
PNG
media_image5.png
168
294
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a third compound represented by Formula ET
PNG
media_image6.png
186
224
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a fourth compound represented by Formula PS
PNG
media_image7.png
328
334
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches a light emitting device with an emission layer that includes a first host, a first dopant and a second dopant (Abstract). Yoon teaches that the second dopant may include a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 11(4)
PNG
media_image8.png
162
294
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y11 and Y12 may be a single bond, and Y15 can be N ([0343 – 0346]). This polycyclic compound is similar to the polycyclic compound of Geum. Yoon teaches that the first dopant is a metal complex that can be selected from
PNG
media_image9.png
146
318
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on claimed Formula PS wherein Q1 to Q4 are each C; C1 and C4 are each a substituted heterocycle having 7 ring forming carbon atoms; C2 and C3 are each an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; L12 is *-O-*; L11 and L13 are direct linkages; b1 to b3 are 1; R41 and R44 are both an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom and d1 and d4 is 1; bothR42 and R43 are hydrogen. Yoon teaches that the emission layer may contain both a first and second host, wherein the first host is a hole transporting compound and the second host may be an electron transporting compound so that the first and second host materials form an exciplex ([0123]). Yoon teaches that the first host may be selected from compounds including compound H19
PNG
media_image10.png
156
296
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula HT wherein Ya is a direct linkage; Ra is a substituted arylene group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms;Z is C(Rz) where Rz is a hydrogen atom; both Rb is hydrogen. Yoon teaches that the second host may be selected from compounds including compound H36
PNG
media_image11.png
250
334
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which reads on compound H-2 wherein Z1 to Z3 are N; R23 and R24 are both an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring forming carbon atoms and R25 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring forming carbon atoms. Yoon teaches that by using this particular combination of materials in a light emitting layer, an OLED can be produced that has low driving voltage, high efficiency and improved lifespan ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light emitting layer of Geum with two host materials and an additional dopant material, wherein the compounds are of the claimed Formulas, motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED that has low driving voltage, high efficiency and improved lifespan as taught by Yoon ([0005]).
Claims 1 – 7 and 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US20240247006A1).
As per claims 1 – 7 and 12 – 20, Oh teaches:
A light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode disposed on the first electrode and an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0025]: “One or more embodiments of the present disclosure relate to an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, a second electrode, an interlayer including an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, and at least one heterocyclic compound.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound represented by Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
246
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Oh teaches that the organic layer comprises a light-emitting layer and the light-emitting layer comprises a compound represented by chemical formula 1 ([0139]). Oh teaches that Chemical Formula 1 has a structure of
PNG
media_image12.png
152
270
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1 and R2 may be represented by Formula 1A
PNG
media_image13.png
168
250
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A particular compound within the scope of Formula 1 taught by Oh is compound 305
PNG
media_image14.png
332
328
media_image14.png
Greyscale
([0135]). Compounds of Formula 1 of Oh and particularly compound 305 of Oh are structural isomers of the claimed compound wherein the phenyl substituent is provided on the same phenyl ring of the dibenzofuran group that is bonded to the polycyclic core, as opposed to the other phenyl ring. The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state “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) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c). and “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). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to move the phenyl group of compound 305 to the other side of the dibenzofuran and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 and X2 are O; R2 and R3 are a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms and R1 is a substituted heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms, R1 specifically is represented by RS-2
PNG
media_image15.png
158
152
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in claims 6 and 18, wherein Rs1 and Rs2 are deuterium atoms and s1 and s2 are integers of 4; R4 to R7 are hydrogen; n1, n2 and n3 are an integer of 1. The compound is represented by Formula 2-1 in claims 2 and 14, Formula 3 in claims 3 and 15, Formula 4-1 in claims 4 and 16, wherein R21 and R22 are an alkyl group of 4 carbon atoms and n23 and n24 are an integer of 1 and Formula 5-2 in claims 5 and 17. This compound is the same as compound 11
PNG
media_image16.png
150
186
media_image16.png
Greyscale
in claims 12 and 20.)
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Because a certified English language translation of the Korean priority document in the instant application has not been filed, the effective filing date of the instant application is presumed to be July 7, 2023. With this effective filing date of the instant application, Oh constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) based on its earlier effectively filed date. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.US20210257550A1 teaches compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights