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 (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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on each of 09/09/2024 and 05/28/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 6-8 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 02/26/2025.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
The objection to the abstract and claim 8 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The objections are each withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-11 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-11 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. WO-2020138874-A1 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. WO-2020138874-A1 is incorporated into the new ground of rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-11 and respectfully maintained for the reasons discussed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 35-37 of the reply dated 02/26/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. WO-2020138874-A1 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 37 that, positional isomer considerations aside, given that Ar1 has been amended to represent monocyclic aryl groups only; and Ar2 cannot represent phenanthryl, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not look to Yoon to arrive at the claimed plurality of organic electroluminescent materials in instant Claim 1.
Examiner's response – The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, it is noted that claim 7 has not been amended and therefore the rejection of claim 7 of the rejection of record has been incorporated into the new grounds of rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-11.
Second, Yoon specifically recites that in Chemical Formula 5,
PNG
media_image1.png
176
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 23, ¶ [139]-[141]), R21 to R24 may be a monocyclic aryl group or a polycyclic aryl group, wherein at least one of R21 to R24 is a polycyclic aryl group (¶ [142]) wherein the monocyclic aryl group may be a phenyl group (¶ [143]). It is noted that in the compound H3 of Yoon, two of R21, R22, and R24 are a polycyclic aryl group. Therefore, as discussed in greater detail in the rejection of record as repeated below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to substitute one of the phenanthrenyl groups in the position R21/R22/R24 in the compound H3 in the Device Example 3 with a phenyl group, because Yoon teaches the variable may be a monocyclic aryl group and the monocyclic aryl group may be phenyl. The modified compound would meet the claimed formula 1 wherein: Ar1 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group; and Ar2 is either an unsubstituted (C12)aryl (a biphenyl group) or a substituted (C6)aryl (a phenyl group), where the substituent is an unsubstituted (C6)aryl group (a phenyl group).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. WO-2020138874-A1 (hereinafter "Yoon") as applied to claim 1 above.
It is noted that Yoon et al. WO-2020138874-A1 is cited on the IDS of 01/10/2024.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9-11, Yoon discloses an organic light emitting diode that includes an emitting layer and at least one hole transport layer or electron blocking layer, wherein the emitting material layer includes and anthracene-based host and a boron-based dopant and the at least one hole transport layer or electron blocking layer includes and aryl amine-based compound (page 2, ¶ [8]), wherein the device has improved luminous efficiency and luminous lifetime (¶ [16]). Yoon discloses specific examples of the organic light emitting diode including Device Examples 2 and 3, which each comprise an anode, a cathode, an emitting layer material between them comprising a boron-based dopant 56 and an electron blocking layer between the anode and the emitting layer comprising an aryl amine-based compound H2 or H3 (page 49, ¶ [295]-[296] referring to pages 48–49 ¶ [291]-[294]).
Dopant 56 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
163
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 64) and is a compound of the claimed formula 2 and claimed formula 2-1 wherein:
Y1 represents B;
X1 and X2 are each NR;
R is in each case an unsubstituted C6 aryl (a phenyl group); and
R21, R23 to R24, R25 to R26 and R28 are each hydrogen and R22 and R27 are each an unsubstituted di(C6)arylamino group (a diphenylamino group).
The electron blocking layer comprising the compounds H2 or H3 is between the anode and the emitting layer material and necessarily transfers holes from the anode to the emitting layer material for light emission. Therefore, the electron blocking layer is in the hole transport zone of the device. Further, it is noted that the instant specification recites that the hole transport zone may be composed of one or more layers including an electron blocking layer (see page 31, second to last paragraph).
Yoon does not specifically exemplify a device wherein the aryl amine-based compound is a compound that meets the claimed formula 1. For example, the compound H3
PNG
media_image3.png
217
244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
differs from the claimed compound C-26
PNG
media_image4.png
331
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
listed in claim 7 in that (1) one of the groups at a position corresponding to a substituent on the claimed Ar1 or Ar2 is instead a phenanthrenyl group instead of a phenyl group, and (2) the linking group in the position corresponding to L1 in the claimed formula (1) is a para-phenylene group instead of a meta-phenylene group.
Regarding (1), Yoon teaches generally that the aryl amine compound has a structure of a Chemical Formula 5
PNG
media_image1.png
176
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 23, ¶ [139]-[141]). Further, Yoon teaches that in Chemical Formula 5, R21 to R24 may be a monocyclic aryl group or a polycyclic aryl group, wherein at least one of R21 to R24 is a polycyclic aryl group (¶ [142]) wherein the monocyclic aryl group may be a phenyl group (¶ [143]). It is noted that in the compound H3 of Yoon, two of R21, R22, and R24 are a polycyclic aryl group.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Yoon, 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 one of the phenanthrenyl groups in the position R21, R22, or R24 in the compound H3 in the Device Example 3 with a phenyl group, because Yoon teaches the variable may be a monocyclic aryl group and the monocyclic aryl group may be phenyl. The substitution would have been one known 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 the electron blocking layer material in the device of Yoon and possess the benefits of improved luminous efficiency and luminous lifetime, as described above, taught by Yoon. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
It is noted that in the modified compound H3 of Yoon, at least one of R21, R22, and R24 is a polycyclic aryl group.
Regarding (2), Yoon teaches generally that the aryl amine compound has a structure of a Chemical Formula 5
PNG
media_image1.png
176
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 23, ¶ [139]-[141]). Further, Yoon teaches that in Chemical Formula 5, R21 to R24 may be a monocyclic aryl group or a polycyclic aryl group, wherein at least one of R21 to R24 is a polycyclic aryl group (¶ [142]) wherein the monocyclic aryl group may be a phenyl group (¶ [143]). Yoon does not specify that the phenyl group must be para-phenylene and Chemical Formula 5 is open to additional substitution patterns.
Given the general formula and teachings of Yoon, 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 the compound wherein the linking group in the position corresponding to R23 in the general formula of Yoon is a meta-phenylene group instead of a para-phenylene group. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the Chemical Formula 5 of Yoon in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the electron blocking layer material in the device of Yoon and possess the properties of improved luminous efficiency and luminous lifetime, taught by Yoon. 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.
The modified aryl amine-based compound of Yoon corresponds to compound C-26
PNG
media_image4.png
331
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in the list in claim 7 and has the structure is a compound of the claimed formula 1 and claimed formula 1-1 wherein:
R1 to R4 are each hydrogen, R5 is
PNG
media_image5.png
93
176
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and R6 to R10 are each hydrogen; and
L1 is an unsubstituted (C6)arylene (a phenylene group);
Ar1 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group; and
Ar2 is either an unsubstituted (C12)aryl (a biphenyl group) or a substituted (C6)aryl (a phenyl group), where the substituent is an unsubstituted (C6)aryl group (a phenyl group).
Therefore, the device comprising the modified compound meet claims 1-7 and 9-11.
Regarding claim 8, Yoon teaches the device comprising the modified compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Yoon does not specifically exemplify a device wherein the boron-based dopant is a compound selected from those listed in claim 8.
However, Yoon teaches generally that the boron-based dopant has a structure of a Chemical Formula 2 (page 10, ¶ [70]-[71]) and teaches specific examples in additional to Dopant 56, including Dopant 1
PNG
media_image6.png
106
158
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 11, ¶ [74]-[76]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Yoon, 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 Dopant 56 in either of the Device Example 2 or 3 with Dopant 1, because Yoon teaches the boron-based dopant compound may suitably be selected as either Dopant 1 or Dopant 56, among others. The substitution would have been one known 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 the emitting layer material in the device of Yoon and possess the benefits of improved luminous efficiency and luminous lifetime, as described above, taught by Yoon. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Dopant 1 of Yoon corresponds to the first compound in the list in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. US-20230002420-A1, which is cited on the IDS of 01/10/2024, teaches an organic light emitting device (¶ [0006]) comprising a light emitting layer comprising a compound of a Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image7.png
108
174
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0008] and [0010]) and a first organic material layer comprising a compound of a Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image8.png
125
202
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0009] and [0017]), which is provided between the anode and the light emitting layer (¶ [0007]); and
Cha et al. WO-2021010656-A1, which is cited on the IDS of 01/10/2024, teaches an organic light emitting element comprising a light-emitting layer provided between a first electrode and a second electrode and a first organic material layer provided between the first electrode and the light emitting layer, wherein the first organic material layer includes a compound represented by chemical formula 1
PNG
media_image9.png
168
334
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, and the light emitting layer includes a compound represented by chemical formula 2
PNG
media_image10.png
153
244
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(Abstract, ¶ [16], ¶ [24]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is (571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time), and alternate Fridays.
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 on 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786