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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, 14, 20, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun et al (US 2019/0006602) (Chun).
In reference to claims 1-3, 11-12, 14, and 20, Chun teaches an example organic light emitting device 2-28 wherein the host material is a mixture of compounds 1-1 and 10-1 as shown below that reads on the instant claims ([0275], Table 2,).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
372
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on a plurality of host materials wherein the compound of 10-1 is a compound of formula 1 wherein each of X1 to X3 is N, Ar1 is phenyl, Ar2 is biphenyl, and Ar3 is a group of formula 1-1 wherein L1 is a single bond, Ar4 is a substituted 12 membered heteroaryl and compound 1-1 reads on formula 2 wherein A1 is phenyl, A2 is biphenyl and each X is hydrogen or a bond.
For Claim 2: Reads on phenyl and biphenyl.
For Claim 3: Reads on hydrogen.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula 2-1.
For Claim 12: Reads on phenyl and biphenyl.
For Claim 14: Reads on H2-147.
For Claim 20: Reads on a device as claimed.
In reference to claims 6 and 23-26, Chun teaches the mixture of hosts materials described above for claim 1. While Chun does not state that the deuteration among materials having the same ‘structural backbone’ is different from one material to another, such a situation is inherent in the materials. Deuterium is a naturally occurring isotope. Based on a sample size of one mg, the materials of Chun would reasonably have ~1010 atoms of deuterium that would be randomly present in the materials therein. As the materials of Chun are not actually described to be isotopically enriched, some of these materials would have deuterium at one position, some at two and many wound not have deuterium at any position. Therefore, the materials of Chun meet the instantly claimed requirements inherently.
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al (US 2019/0006602) (Chun) in view of Hwang et al (US 2023/0018666) (Hwang).
In reference to claims 7-10, Chun teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Chun teaches that the materials therein can be further substituted with deuterium (Chun [0088]). However, Chun does not expressly state that the compounds should have the claimed ranges of deuterium substitution percentages.
With respect to the difference, Hwang teaches, in analogous art, methods of deuterating aromatic organic compounds for use in OLED devices. Hwang teaches that through such methods, deuterium substitution rates can be achieved of 50% or more and up to 100% and that higher percentages yield increased device service life characteristics (Hwang [0004] [0145] [0166]).
In light of the motivation of using deuteration methos as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the deuteration methods as described by Hwang in order to improve device service life and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For Claim 7: Reads on the claimed range of deuteration.
For Claim 8: Reads on wherein at least one of the claimed X groups is D.
For Claim 9: Reads on the claimed range of deuteration.
For Claim 10: Reads on the claimed range of deuteration.
Claims 1-5, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al (US 2019/0006602) (Chun) in view of Parham et al (US 2015/0214489) (Parham).
In reference to claims 1-4, 11, 12, 14 and 20, Chun teaches an organic EL device comprising a mixture of host materials wherein one is a p-type host that can comprise a carbazole such as compound 1-1 and the other host is an n-type host that include carbazole and triazine groups (e.g. materials of formulae 10, 11, etc.) (Chun [0007] [0240] [0043]).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Chun does not expressly teach the instantly claimed materials comprising the substituents as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Parham teaches, in analogous art, compounds for use in organic EL devices comprising a compound of formula (1) as shown below (Parham [0051]), for example a compound as shown below right. Parham further teaches the compounds are useful as electron transport materials (i.e. n-type materials) and provide improvements when used as matrix materials including improvements in power efficiency, lifetime, and others (Parham [0012] [0116] [0117]).
PNG
media_image3.png
202
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
318
192
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the compound of Parham as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound as described by Parham in order to improve device power efficiency and lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a plurality of host materials wherein the compound of Parham is a compound of formula 1 wherein each of X1 to X3 is N, Ar1 is phenyl, Ar2 is phenyl, and Ar3 is a group of formula 1-1 wherein L1 is a phenylene, Ar4 is phenyl and compound 1-1 reads on formula 2 wherein A1 is phenyl, A2 is biphenyl and each X is hydrogen or a bond.
For Claim 2: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 3: Reads on hydrogen.
For Claim 4: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 11: Reads on 2-1.
For Claim 12: Reads on phenyl and biphenyl.
For Claim 14: Reads on H2-147.
For Claim 20: Reads on a device as claimed.
In reference to claims 5, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-22, Chun in view of Parham teach the device comprising a mixture of host materials described above for claim 1.
Parham does not exemplify a compound as instantly claimed. However, Parham specifically teaches that the group Ar1 can be a phenyl group substituted with a group R1 that can be a dibenzofuran or a dibenzothiophene group (Parham [0015] [0018]).
Parham discloses the compound of formula (1) that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including preferred substituents R1. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Parham are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for R1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Parham and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 5: Reads on a compound of formula 1 wherein each of X1 to X3 is N, Ar1 is phenyl, Ar2 is phenyl, and Ar3 is a group of formula A-1 wherein L1 is a phenylene, L2 is phenylene and Y is O or S.
For Claim 15: Reads on a compound of formula 11 wherein Ar’1 and Ar’2 are each phenyl, each X is N, L’1 is a phenylene, L’2 is a phenylene, and Har is a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene.
For Claim 16: Reads on A-1 wherein Y is O ro S.
For Claim 18: Reads on a compound of formula 11 wherein Ar’1 and Ar’2 are each phenyl, each X is N, L’1 is a phenylene, L’2 is a phenylene, and Har is a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene and compound 1-1 reads on formula 2 wherein A1 is phenyl, A2 is biphenyl and each X is hydrogen or a bond.
For Claim 19: Reads on H2-147.
For Claim 21: Reads on a device as claimed.
For Claim 22: Reads on a device as claimed.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun et al (US 2019/0006602) (Chun) in view of Min et al (US 2012/0267620) (Min).
In reference to claim 13, Chun teaches an organic EL device comprising a mixture of host materials wherein one is a p-type host that can comprise a carbazole such as compound 1-1 and the other host is an n-type host that include carbazole and triazine groups (e.g. materials of formulae 10, 11, etc.) (Chun [0007] [0240] [0043]).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Chun does not expressly teach the instantly claimed specific materials for use as the n-type host.
With respect to the difference, Min teaches, in analogous art, compounds of chemical formula 1 such as chemical formula 9 that are useful as electron transport and host materials in organic EL devices and further teaches that when used in a device it improves life-span, efficiency, electrochemical stability and thermal stability of the device and decreases driving voltage (Min [0060] [0061]).
PNG
media_image5.png
206
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
258
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the compound of chemical formula 9 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound of chemical formula 9 as described by Min in order to improve life-span, efficiency, electrochemical stability and thermal stability of the device and decrease driving voltage, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 13: Reads on compound C-3.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 2012/0267620) (Min) in view of in view of Parham et al (US 2015/021489) (Parham).
In reference to claim 17, Min teaches compounds of chemical formula 1 such as chemical formula 9 that are useful as electron transport and host materials in organic EL devices and further teaches that when used in a device it improves life-span, efficiency, electrochemical stability and thermal stability of the device and decreases driving voltage (Min [0060] [0061]).
PNG
media_image5.png
206
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
258
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Min further teaches that the group Ar2 can be further substituted with additional groups such as aryl or heteroaryl groups but does not provide any specific teaching of a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Parham teaches, in analogous art, similar compounds for use as electron transport or host materials and further Parham specifically teaches that the group Ar1 (corresponding to Min’s Ar2) can be a phenyl group substituted with a group R1 that can be a dibenzofuran group (Parham [0015] [0018]).
Parham discloses the compound of formula (1) that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including preferred substituents R1. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Parham are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for R1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Parham and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 17: Reads on e.g. compound C-53.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jennifer A. Boyd can be reached at (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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights