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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application KR10-2022-0176580 filed in Republic of Korea on December 16, 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on October 10, 2023, have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed October 10, 2023.
Claims 1 to 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-12 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (KR20220037190A, relying on WIPO English translation) in view of Lee et al. (KR20160014205A, relying on WIPO English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches an organic light emitting diode (Page 001, para. 11), including: a first electrode (Page 001, para. 11); a second electrode facing the first electrode (Page 001, para. 11); and an emissive layer including at least one emitting material layer (Page 002, para. 2).
Bae teaches that the emissive layer includes a first compound of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
447
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Bae teaches that R1 to R6 may be a C6 to C30 aryl group (Page 001, last paragraph). A specific compound of chemical Formula 1 is compound 1-25
PNG
media_image2.png
588
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Bae also teaches that an aryl group may be phenyl or naphthyl (Page 007, para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 1-25 and replace the phenyl group in the R1 and R2 position with a naphthyl group, because it would have been choosing one substituent for other, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the compound of Chemical Formula 1 of Bae in the emitting layer of the organic light emitting diode of Bae and possessing the benefits taught by Bae. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Bae in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
PNG
media_image3.png
658
1211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
When compound 1-25 is modified this way, modified compound 1-25 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 where in the claimed formula,
a1 to a2, and a5 to a6 are 0, thus R1 to R2 and R5 to R6 do not exist.
a3 and a4 are 1
R3 and R4 are an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
Bae does not specifically teach a second compound including an organometallic compound represented by Chemical Formula 4. However, Bae teaches that the emitting layer includes a dopant and that the dopant may be a phosphorescent compound (page 022, para. 2).
Lee teaches a phosphorescent compound of Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image4.png
455
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Lee teaches that this phosphorescent compound may be used to improve luminous efficiency and in an organic light emitting device (Page 005, Effects of the Invention section). A specific compound of Chemical Formula 2 is compound PD-51
PNG
media_image5.png
366
333
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Compound PD-51 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 4 where in the claimed formula,
b1 to b4 is 0, thus R21 to R24 do not exist.
b5 is 1.
R25 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group.
W is a halogen atom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the phosphorescent compound of Lee in the organic light emitting diode of Bae, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Bae and Lee according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with improved luminous efficiency, as taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Bae further teaches wherein modified compound 1-25 is represented by either Chemical formula 2A or chemical Formula 2B. Modified Bae further teaches where in the claimed formulas,
a1 to a2, and a5 to a6 are 0, thus R11 to R12 and R15 to R16 do not exist.
a3 and a4 are 1
R13 and R14 are an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
Regarding claim 3, modified Bae further teaches wherein,
a1 to a2, and a5 to a6 are 0, thus R1 to R2 and R5 to R6 do not exist.
a3 and a4 are 1
R3 and R4 are an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
Regarding claim 4, modified Bae further teaches wherein,
a1 to a2, and a5 to a6 are 0, thus R1 to R2 and R5 to R6 do not exist.
R3 and R4 are an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
a3 and a4 are 1
Regarding claim 5, modified Bae teaches modified compound 1-25
PNG
media_image6.png
656
660
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Modified compound 1-25 is a general formula that teaches multiple isomers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify compound 1-25 to provide a structural isomer and arrive at compound such as
PNG
media_image7.png
661
557
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Further modified compound 1-25
PNG
media_image7.png
661
557
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is compound 1-3
PNG
media_image8.png
495
358
media_image8.png
Greyscale
of instant application.
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).
Regarding claim 6, further modified Bae teaches the organic light emitting diode of claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 12. However, compound PD-51
PNG
media_image9.png
366
333
media_image9.png
Greyscale
of Lee (and modified Bae) is not one of the organometallic compounds disclosed in the instant claim.
Lee teaches that in Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image4.png
455
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
R9 may be a C6 or more substituted or unsubstituted aromatic group. Compound PD-45- is a specific compound of chemical Formula 2 with a C6 unsubstituted aromatic group
PNG
media_image10.png
382
327
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Given the general formula and teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hydrogen in the R9 position of PD-51, with a C6 unsubstituted aromatic group. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a phosphorescent compound in the emitting layer of the organic light emitting diode of Bae and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound PD-51 by choosing a C6 aromatic ring instead of a hydrogen in the R9 position, because it would have been choosing one substituent over another, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the phosphorescent compound in the emitting layer of the organic light emitting diode device of Bae and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chemical Formula 2 of Lee having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound PD-51
PNG
media_image11.png
516
355
media_image11.png
Greyscale
is compound 2-1
PNG
media_image12.png
565
374
media_image12.png
Greyscale
of instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, further modified Bae teaches the organic light emitting diode of claim 1, and claims 5 to 6 as described above in Paragraphs 12, and 16 to 0.
Further modified Bae appears silent with respect to the absorption spectrum of the first compound overlapping 30% or more of a luminescence spectrum of the second compound. The instant specification recites in Ex. 7, Table 2, that the overlap degree between the absorption spectrum of the first compound (compound 1-3 of instant application) and luminescence spectrum of the second compound (compound 2-1 of instant application) is 36%. Since further modified Bae teaches an organic light emitting diode with further modified compound 1-25 (compound 1-3 of instant application in Ex. 7) as the first compound and modified compound PD-51 (compound 2-1 of instant application in Ex. 7) as the second compound, the property wherein the first compound has an absorption spectrum that overlaps 30% or more of a luminescence spectrum of the second compound is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range of the claim), absent evidence otherwise.
Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 8, further modified Bae teaches the organic light emitting diode of claim 1, and claims 5 to 6 as described above in Paragraphs 12, and 16 to 0.
Further modified Bae appears silent with respect to the maximum absorption wavelength of the first compound being 30 nm or less away from a maximum luminescence wavelength of the second compound. The instant specification recites in Ex. 7, Table 2, that the maximum absorption wavelength of the first compound (compound 1-3 of instant application) is 513 nm, and that the luminescence wavelength of the second compound (compound 2-1 of instant application) is 526 nm. Since further modified Bae teaches an organic light emitting diode with further modified compound 1-25 (compound 1-3 of instant application in Ex. 7) as the first compound and modified compound PD-51 (compound 2-1 of instant application in Ex. 7) as the second compound, the property wherein the first compound has a maximum absorption wavelength of 30 nm or less away from a maximum luminescence wavelength of the second compound is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range of the claim), absent evidence otherwise.
Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicants bear responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 9, modified Bae further teaches wherein the at least one emitting layer further includes a third compound (Bae teaches that the first emitting layer may further include a third compound as a host, Page 016, para. 15).
Regarding claim 10, in Experimental Example 6, modified Bae teaches that the third compound is second organic compound Chemical Formula 6.
PNG
media_image13.png
800
990
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 6 of modified Bae reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 6 where in the claimed formula,
c1 to c4 are 0, thus R31 to R34 do not exist.
Y1 is represented by Chemical Formula 7A where in the claimed formula,
c5 and c6 are 0, thus R35 and R36 do not exist.
Regarding claim 11, modified Bae further teaches wherein the second organic compound is Chemical Formula 6
PNG
media_image14.png
263
356
media_image14.png
Greyscale
which is compound 3-1
PNG
media_image15.png
490
373
media_image15.png
Greyscale
of instant application.
Regarding claim 12, modified Bae further teaches wherein the at least one emitting material layer further includes a fourth compound (triazine electron transporting hosts of Chemical Formula 2,
PNG
media_image16.png
742
581
media_image16.png
Greyscale
, Page 2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bae further teaches wherein the emissive layer has a single emitting part (Page 19, para. 12).
Regarding claim 17, modified Bae further teaches wherein the emissive layer comprises:
A first emitting part (Fig. 13, 1410, first emission part) disposed between the first (Fig. 13, first electrode, 1360) and second (Fig. 13, 1364, second electrode) electrodes and including a first emitting material layer (Fig. 13, 1420, first EML);
A second emitting part (Fig. 13, 1430, second emission part) disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a second emitting material layer (Fig. 13, 1440, second EML);
And a first charge generation layer (Fig. 13, first CGL 1470) disposed between the first emitting part and the second emitting part,
Wherein at least one of the first emitting material layer and the second emitting material layer includes the first compound and the second compound (Page 021, last two paragraphs and Page 022, first two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 18, since the claim requires a first and second layer in a single emitting layer but does not claim the composition of either layer or require that the layers are different, the layers are interpreted as sublayers of a single light-emitting layer.
Therefore, the limitations wherein the second emitting material layer is the at least one emitting material layer, and the second emitting material layer includes: a first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode; and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the second electrode, are taught by modified Bae.
Additionally, since the second emitting layer can be interpreted as whichever of the emitting units, modified Bae teaches that the first and second compound are in the light emitting layer, as described above for claim 17 in Paragraph 25.
Regarding claim 19, modified Bae further teaches wherein the emissive layer further includes:
A third emitting part (Fig. 13, 1450, third emitting part) disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer;
And a second charge generation (Fig. 13, 1480, second CGL) layer disposed between the second emitting part and the third emitting part,
Wherein the second emitting material layer includes the first compound and the second compound (Page 022, para. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 20, since the claim requires a first and second layer in a single emitting layer but does not claim the composition of either layer or require that the layers are different, the layers are interpreted as sublayers of a single light-emitting layer.
Therefore, the limitations wherein the second emitting material layer is the at least one emitting material layer, and the second emitting material layer includes: a first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode; and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the second electrode, are taught by modified Bae.
Additionally, since the second emitting layer can be interpreted as whichever of the emitting units, modified Bae teaches that the first and second compound are in the light emitting layer, as described above for claim 17 in Paragraph 27.
Regarding claim 21, modified Bae further teaches wherein the first layer includes the first compound as described as described above for claim 20 in Paragraph 28.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (KR20220037190A, relying on WIPO English translation) and Lee et al. (KR20160014205A, relying on WIPO English translation) as applied to claim 1-12 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0313535 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2021/0151693 A1, here on referred to as Lee 693').
Regarding claim 13, modified Bae teaches the organic light emitting diode of claim 12 as described in Paragraph 23.
Modified Bae teaches that the fourth compound is a triazine electron transporting hosts of Chemical Formula 2,
PNG
media_image16.png
742
581
media_image16.png
Greyscale
. Chemical Formula 2 of Bae differs from the claimed Chemical Formula 9 in that it does not include a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene in the core structure.
Kim et al. teaches a three or more host OLED with at least one hole transport host and two electron transport hosts (abstract). Kim teaches that combining two different electron transporting hosts with a hole transporting host improves efficiency and lifespan as compared to two component systems (para. 0040-0042). Kim teaches that compounds used as hole transporting hosts may be carbazole-based compounds (para. 0087), such as compound Chemical Formula 6 of Bae. Additionally, Kim teaches that compounds used as electron transporting hosts may be triazine-based compounds (para. 0087), such as compounds of Chemical Formula 2 of Bae.
Lee 693’ teaches host materials for OLEDs, specifically, compounds of formula 1
PNG
media_image17.png
319
378
media_image17.png
Greyscale
which provides fast electron mobility due to a nitrogen-containing moiety (para. 0006). A specific compound of formula 1 is compound E-111
PNG
media_image18.png
540
409
media_image18.png
Greyscale
, a triazine-based host.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate compound E-111 of Lee 693’ because compound E-111 is a triazine-based electron transporting host and Kim teaches that the use of two electron transporting host with a hole transporting host improves efficiency and lifespan and would predictably combine with the OLED of Bae to act as a suitable triazine-based electron transporting host.
Compound E-111 reads on Chemical Formula 9.
PNG
media_image19.png
737
1209
media_image19.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 9,
X is O
R41 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl group
R42 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
L1 is an unsubstituted C10 arylene group
d1 and d2 are 0 thus R43 and R44 do not exist
Regarding claim 14, further modified Bae teaches wherein compound E-111 reads on Chemical Formula 10.
PNG
media_image20.png
628
1209
media_image20.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Chemical Formula 10,
X1 and L1 are as defined above for claim 9 in Paragraph 9.
d3 to d6 is 0 thus R46 to R49 do not exist
Regarding claim 15, further modified Bae teaches wherein compound E-111
PNG
media_image18.png
540
409
media_image18.png
Greyscale
is compound 4-1
PNG
media_image21.png
450
316
media_image21.png
Greyscale
of instant claim.
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
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