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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 12/21/2018.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–18 objected to because of the following informalities: some words in the claims have a space in the middle, making it difficult to interpret. For example, pg. 82 of the claims recites “heter ocyclic” instead of heterocyclic and “hydr ogen” instead of hydrogen. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–18 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.
Claim 1 recites “at least one substituent of the substituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group …”, however it is unclear if the C5-C60 carbocyclic group represented by Formula 1A must be substituted. Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant’s limitation of “at least one substituent of the substituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group …” applies to A1 and A1.
Claims 2–18 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
A1 and A2 will be interpreted as unsubstituted when R20 and R30 are each hydrogen.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "b40 and b50 are each independently an integer from 1 to 10.” However, b40 and b50 are not present in Applicant’s Formula 1, Formula 1A, or Formulae 2B-1 to 2B-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 will be interpreted as b40 and b50 being deleted.
Claims 5–7 recites the limitation "R40 and R50 are each independently…” However, R40 and R50 are not present in Applicant’s Formula 1, Formula 1A, or Formulae 2B-1 to 2B-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
R40 and R50 will be interpreted as R41 to R43, and R51 to R54, respectively.
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.
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 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2017/0194570 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 10/16/2023, hereinafter “Kang”), and evidenced by Thompson et al. (US 2004/0102632 A1, hereinafter “Thompson”).
Regarding Claims 1–10, Kang discloses compound H-36 [pg. 26] which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1, Formula 1A, and Formula 2B-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
232
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
151
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
138
141
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
267
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Cz1 is a group represented by Formula 1A,
Het1 is a group represented by Formula 2B-1,
X1 is N(R9),
X41 to X44 and X51 to X54 are C(R41) to C(R44) and C(R51) to C(R54), respectively,
A1 and A2 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
R1 to R8, R10, R20, R30, R41 to R44, and R51 to R54 are each hydrogen,
b10, b20, and b30 are each 4,
R9 is bonded to Formula 1.
However, H-36 fails to read on Applicant’s Formula 1, Formula 1A, and Formula 2B-1 since R9 is not specified to be allowed to bond to Formula 1.
H-36 is represented by Kang’s Formula 2: Ar11-(L11)a11-Ar12, and more specifically Kang’s Formula 2-24 wherein Ar11 is a carbazole bonded through the nitrogen, Ar12 is a carbazole bonded through the nitrogen, Z51 to Z53 are each hydrogen, while Z54 is a phenyl ([0010], [0155], and pg. 15). Kang further teaches Ar12 may be a carbazole bonded through a carbon, as shown in compound H-14 (shown below) [pg. 24]. Additionally, Kang teaches organic light emitting devices comprising compounds of Kang’s disclosure results in a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan [0008].
PNG
media_image5.png
194
264
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
267
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
278
415
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbazole bonded through the nitrogen in H-36 with a carbazole bonded through a carbon, because Kang teaches the variable may suitably be selected as a carbazole bonded through a carbon, as shown in H-14. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kang and possess the low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan benefits taught by Kang. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per Claim 1, the modified version of H-36 (hereinafter “Modified H-36”) reads on Applicant’s Formula 1, Formula 1A, and Formula 2B-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
232
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
151
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
138
141
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
418
406
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Cz1 is a group represented by Formula 1A,
Het1 is a group represented by Formula 2B-1,
X1 is N(R9),
X41 to X43 and X51 to X54 are C(R41) to C(R44) and C(R51) to C(R54), respectively,
X44 is *-C,
A1 and A2 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (benzene),
R1 to R8, R10, R20, R30, R41 to R43, and R51 to R54 are each hydrogen,
R9 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl),
b10, b20, and b30 are each 4.
Per Claim 2, Cz1 is represented by Formula 2A-1 (shown below), wherein X21 to X24 and X31 to X34 are each C(R21) to C(R24) and C(R31) to C(R34), respectively, and wherein R21 to R24 and R31 to R34 are each hydrogen.
Per Claims 3 and 4, A1 and A2 are each a benzene group. A3 and A4 are not present in Modified H-36.
Per Claims 5–7, R1 to R10, R20, R30, R41 to R43, and R51 to R54 are each hydrogen in Modified H-36.
Per Claim 8, Modified H-36 does not comprise a cyano group.
Per Claim 9, Modified H-36 reads on Applicant’s Formula 10-11 (shown below), wherein X1 is N(R9), Cz1 is represented by Formula 10A, R1 to R8, R10, R20, R30, R41 to R43, and R51 to R54 are each hydrogen, R9 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image8.png
443
332
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
259
230
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
418
406
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 10, Modified H-36 has an asymmetrical structure.
Regarding Claim 12–15 and 16–17, Kang teaches exemplified organic light emitting devices comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer comprising a compound taught by Kang, an emission layer comprising a compound taught by Kang as a host at 90 wt % and FIr6 as a dopant at 10 wt %, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode ([0386] – [0389], Table 3, and Table 4). Kang further teaches using the compounds taught by Kang may improve the mobility of electrons and holes in the organic light emitting device, and the emission layer may control the charge balance, thereby implementing an organic light emitting device having high efficiency and long lifespan [0262].
However, Kang does not explicitly teach an organic light emitting device comprising Modified H-36 as a host.
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 use Modified H-36 in the electron blocking layer and as a host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device, as described above, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kang according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with the high efficiency and long lifespan benefits, as taught by Kang. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claims 12–15 and 17, the organic light emitting device, as described above including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer comprising Modified H-36, an emission layer comprising Modified H-36 as a host at 90 wt % and FIr6 as a dopant at 10 wt %, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode.
Per Claim 16, the organic light emitting device comprises FIr6 as the dopant.
However, Kang appears silent with respect to the maximum emission wavelength of FIr6.
Thompson evidences (fppy)Ir(pz2Bpz2), the same structure as FIr6, which has a maximum emission wavelength of 455 nm ([0127] and Table 1). Since Kang teaches FIr6, the same structure as disclosed Thompson, the property of maximum emission wavelength is considered to be inherent, and therefore would be 455 nm, 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 11, Modified H-36 does not read on compounds 2, 7 to 10, and 13 to 15.
Kang teaches compound E-7 [pg. 22], represented by Kang’s Formula 1: Ar1–(L1)a1–Ar2 [0010], and more specifically Kang’s Formula 1-2 [0097], wherein Ar1 is represented by a carbazole, Ar2 is represented by a dibenzothiophene, Z1 to Z4 are each hydrogen, c6 and c7 are each 1. Kang further teaches compound E-2 [pg. 21], wherein Ar1 is a carbazole substituted with a cyano group (red box). Additionally, c6 is 0 in E-2 (blue box). Kang further teaches Z1 to Z4 are represented by R5 which may be a phenyl group ([0078] – [0079] and [0098]). Additionally, Kang teaches organic light emitting devices comprising compounds of Kang’s disclosure results in a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan [0008].
PNG
media_image10.png
213
226
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
248
406
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
294
385
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute hydrogen with a cyano group in the carbazole corresponding with A1, and to substitute a cyano group with hydrogen (i.e. c6 and c7 each being 0), and to substitute hydrogen for a phenyl group for Z4 in compound E-7, because Kang teaches the variable may suitably be selected as a cyano group, hydrogen, or a phenyl group respectively. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Kang and possess the benefits taught by Kang. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a phenyl group for Z4, because it would have been choosing between the substituents listed for R5 [0079], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Kang and possessing the benefits taught by Kang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Kang’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Kang 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 version of E-7, as described above (hereinafter “Modified E-7”), nearly reads on Applicant’s compound 15 (shown below). However, the phenyl group must be in position 2 while the dibenzothiophene must be in position 1 (i.e. Modified E-7 is a positional isomer of compound 15). Note that Kang’s Formula 1, which represents E-7 and Modified E-7, does not specify the bonding position of Ar2 or the substituents on L1.
PNG
media_image13.png
250
269
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
247
430
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Given the general formula and teachings of Kang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Modified E-7 wherein the phenyl group is bonded at the 2-position while the dibenzothiophene is bonded at the 1-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Kang’s Formula 1/the positional isomers of the compound represented by Modified E-7 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Kang and possess the properties taught by Kang. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Per Claim 11, the further modified version of E-7, as described above (hereinafter “2nd Modified E-7”), is identical to Applicant’s Compound 15 (shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
250
269
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
243
366
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, the organic light emitting device as described, as described above, fails to comprise a compound which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 in the electron transport region.
Kang teaches a compound represented by Kang’s Formula 1 may be used as a material for the hole blocking layer [0311]. Note that 2nd Modified E-7 is represented by Kang’s Formula 1. Additionally, Kang teaches organic light emitting devices comprising compounds of Kang’s disclosure results in a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan [0008].
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 use 2nd Modified E-7 in the hole blocking layer of the organic light emitting device, as described above, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kang according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with the low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan benefits, as taught by Kang. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
The organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising 2nd Modified E-7 in the hole blocking layer reads on Applicant’s limitation since the hole blocking layer is part of the electron transport region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (US 2017/0358755 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 10/16/2023, hereinafter “Jung”) teaches compound 127 which is a structural isomer of a compound which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1, Formula 1A, and Formula 2B-1.
PNG
media_image16.png
248
293
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights