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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The atom labels in the compounds (pages 12 to 18, 22 to 35, and 39 to 43) are big and the bonds to the atoms are sometimes difficult to determine if there is a bond or not (below are some annotated examples).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
1209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The bonds in the deuterated structures are low resolutions, some are not completely visible and is difficult to determine if there is a bond or not (see annotated compound above).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
PNG
media_image2.png
723
1210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the atom labels in the compounds are big and the bonds to the atoms are sometimes difficult to determine if there is a bond or not (see annotated compound A-93 above for an example).
Regarding claim 10,
The atom labels in the compounds are big and the bonds to the atoms are sometimes difficult to determine if there is a bond or not (see annotated deuterated compound above for an example).
The bonds in the deuterated structures are low resolutions, some are not completely visible and is difficult to determine if there is a bond or not (see annotated deuterated compound above).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210175433 A1) in view of Fleetham et al. (US 20220181561 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a plurality of host materials with an Iridium-based complex as a dopant (Device Example 2, host compounds H2-6 and A-1, dopant D-50). Kim teaches that the plurality of host materials comprises a first host material comprising at least one compound represented by formula 1 (compound A-1) and a second host material comprising at least one compound represented by formula 2 (compound H2-6)
PNG
media_image3.png
515
1211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed formula 1, compound A-1 of Kim,
X is -O-
R1 to R3 are hydrogen atoms
R4 is –(L1)a-Ar1
L1 is a single bond
Ar1 is a substituted 6-membered heteroaryl
a is 1
R5 to R6 and R8 are hydrogen atoms
R7 is formula a
wherein in the claimed formula a, compound A-1 of Kim,
Y is a -O-
R9 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl
R10 is a hydrogen atom
z is 3
wherein in the claimed formula 2, compound H2-6 of Kim,
A1 and A2 are a substituted C6 aryl
X11 to X26 are hydrogen atoms
Kim fails to teach wherein at least one of the first and second host materials comprise deuterium. However, Kim teaches a general formula 1, wherein compound A-1 is a specific compound of, wherein R2 and R3 (corresponding to R1 to R3 and R5 to R8 of instant application for formula 1) may be deuterium (para. 0034). Additionally, Kim teaches formula 11, wherein compound H2-6 is a specific compound of, wherein X11 to X28 (corresponding to X11 to X26 of instant application of formula 2) may be deuterium (para. 0048).
PNG
media_image4.png
745
1210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fleetham teaches an OLED having greatly enhance device lifetimes with deuterated hosts in the emissive layer (abstract, para. 0053). This is similar to Kim’s composition of the emission layer. Fleetham teaches that a device lifetime is at least 1.5 times greater when using a deuterated host (para. 0053). Additionally, Fleetham teaches a suitable deuterated host for the device with the identical to compound H2-6 of Kim, with the exception that the compound is deuterated (page 32, bottom structure).
PNG
media_image5.png
749
1211
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate the H2-6 compound of Kim, because it would have been choosing a deuterium instead of a hydrogen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the deuterated host in the emissive layer of the OLED device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds for OLED devices comprising a deuterated host having the benefits taught by Fleetham 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 Kim further teaches wherein in formula 2, X11-X15, X17-X20, and X22-X26 represent a deuterium.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim further teaches wherein in formula 2, a deuterium substitution rate is 100%.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim further teaches wherein in formula 2, a deuterium substitution rate is 100%.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim further teaches wherein Ar1-- in formula 1 is substituted triazinyl.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim further teaches wherein formula 2 is represented by formula 2-1.
PNG
media_image6.png
715
1212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim further teaches wherein A1 and A2 in formula 2 are an unsubstituted biphenyl.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim further teaches wherein the substituents of the substituted 6-membered heteroarylene are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim further teaches wherein the compound represented by formula 1 is
PNG
media_image7.png
353
549
media_image7.png
Greyscale
which is claimed compound A-1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim further teaches wherein the compound represented by formula 2 is
PNG
media_image8.png
750
473
media_image8.png
Greyscale
which is claimed compound H2-46 wherein n is 32.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim further teaches an organic electroluminescent device (Device Example 2, para. 0090) comprising a first electrode (ITO anode, para. 0087) ; a second electrode (Al cathode, para. 0087); and at least one light-emitting layer (light-emitting layer, para. 0087) between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein at least one layer of the light-emitting layers comprises the plurality of host materials (modified deuterated compound H2-6 and compound A-1 in Table 2, para. 0090) according to claimed 1.
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
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights