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 12/08/2022 and the application filed in Korea on 11/09/2023.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner’s position that at least a chemical structure formula of Formula 1 of Claim 1 should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Xia et al. (US 2016/0233429 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 12/05/2023, hereinafter “Xia”).
Regarding Claim 1, Xia discloses Compound A2 [0062] which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
215
157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
295
275
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
341
279
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
L1, L2, and L4 are each a single bond,
L3 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene (phenylene),
R1 to R4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl).
Notably, the single bond between the two triazines allows rotation. Therefore, -L4-R4 and -L3-R3 may be substituted for each other and still describe the same molecule. A rotated version of Compound A2 is shown above for clarity.
Regarding Claim 2, R1 to R4 are each an unsubstituted phenyl in Compound A2
Regarding Claim 5, -L3-R3 is a biphenyl while -L1-R1, -L2-R2, and -L4-R4 are each phenyl in Compound A2.
Regarding Claim 7, Compound A2 is an organic electroluminescent material since Xia discloses that it can be used as a host or electron transporting material in an organic light emitting device [0052].
Claims 1–2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Pan et al. (US 2020/0095226 A1, hereinafter “Pan”).
Regarding Claim 1, Pan discloses Compound 1 [pg. 28] which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
215
157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
355
312
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
L1, L3, and L4 are each a single bond,
L2 is a C6 arylene (phenylene) substituted with a C14 aryl (anthracene),
R1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
R2 is a C14 aryl (anthracene),
R3 and R4 are each a C10 aryl (naphthalene).
Regarding Claim 2, R1 is a phenyl, R2 is an anthracenyl, R3 and R4 are each a naphthyl in Compound 1.
Regarding Claim 5, -L1-R1 is an phenyl, -L2-R2 is an phenylene bonded to an anthracenyl, -L3-R3 and -L4-R4 are each a naphthyl in Compound 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Compound 1 is an organic electroluminescent material since Pan discloses that it can be used in the electron transport layer, the electron injection layer, or the light-emitting layer of an OLED device [0133].
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2021/0070717 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses Compound 209 [pg. 78] which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
215
157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
280
243
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein:
L1 to L4 are each a single bond,
R1 to R4 are each a 9-membered heteroaryl (benzoxazole).
Regarding Claim 7, Compound 209 is an organic electroluminescent material since Li discloses that Compound 209 may be used as a hole blocking layer material or the electron transport layer material in an OLED device [0008].
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2017/0200902 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses Compound A-17 [pg. 10] which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
215
157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
238
233
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
L1 to L4 are each a single bond,
R2 to R4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl),
R1 is a 6-membered heteroaryl (triazine) substituted with two C6 aryl groups (phenyls).
Regarding Claim 7, Compound A-17 is an organic electroluminescent material since Lee discloses Compound A-17 may be used in the auxiliary layer of an organic light emitting device [0025].
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 3–4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2016/0233429 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Compound A2 fails to read on Applicant’s Compound C-31.
Compound A2 is represented by Xia’s Formula 1 [0017] (shown below), wherein G4 is represented by a phenyl. Xia teaches G4 may be a biphenyl [0061]. Xia further teaches Compound A3 wherein G1 and G4 are both a biphenyl [0062]. Note that the single bond between the two triazine groups may rotate, and therefore G4 and G3 are interchangeable. Additionally, Xia teaches it is desirable to use the compounds of present disclosure in OLEDs since they are electron deficient making them easy to reduce and rendering them excellent candidates for electron transport [0052].
PNG
media_image7.png
151
164
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
295
275
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
260
320
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Xia, 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 biphenyl for phenyl in G4 in Compound A2, because Xia teaches the variable may suitably be selected as biphenyl. 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 the host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Xia and possess the electron transport benefits taught by Xia. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per Claim 3, the modified version of Compound A2, as described above (hereinafter “Modified A2”), is identical to Applicant’s Compound C-31 (shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
179
222
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
311
273
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 4, Modified A2 is represented by Applicant’s Formula 1-2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image11.png
227
175
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
311
273
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Compound A2 does not comprise a different structure for each of -L1-R1, -L2-R2, -L3-R3, and -L4-R4.
Xia also discloses Compound B2 which is represented by Xia’s Formula 1 (shown below), wherein G1 is a biphenyl, G2 and G3 are each a phenyl, and G4 is a carbazole [pg. 8]. Xia teaches G2 may be a dibenzofuran [0061]. Xia further discloses Compound C4 which comprises a dibenzofuran wherein X is O (shown below) [pg. 8]. Additionally, Xia teaches it is desirable to use the compounds of present disclosure in OLEDs since they are electron deficient making them easy to reduce and rendering them excellent candidates for electron transport [0052].
PNG
media_image7.png
151
164
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
241
321
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
360
263
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Xia, 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 dibenzofuran for phenyl in G2 in Compound B2, because Xia teaches the variable may suitably be selected as biphenyl. 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 the host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Xia and possess the electron transport benefits taught by Xia. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified version of Compound B2, as described above (hereinafter “Modified B2”), reads on Applicant’s limitation since -L1-R1, -L2-R2, -L3-R3, and -L4-R4 are each a different structure (shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
281
371
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (US 2016/0233429 A1) as applied to claims 1–7 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereinafter “Liao”).
Xia Compound A2 may be used as a host material or an electron transporting material [0052]. Xia further teaches it is desirable to use the compounds of present disclosure in OLEDs since they are electron deficient making them easy to reduce and rendering them excellent candidates for electron transport [0052]
However, Xia fails to teach an organic light emitting device including an n-type charge generation layer comprising Compound A2.
Liao teaches the organic light emitting device of Fig. 5 (shown below) including an anode (210), a cathode (240), two stacked organic EL units (320.1 and 320.2), and a charge generation layer (230) comprising a p-type doped organic layer (233) and an n-type doped organic layer (237) ([0059], [0090], and [0188]). Liao teaches electron-transporting materials used in conventional OLED devices represent a useful class of host materials for the n-type doped organic layer [0062]. Liao further specifies that triazine based compounds are also useful host materials [0062].
PNG
media_image15.png
499
653
media_image15.png
Greyscale
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 Compound A2, taught by Xia, as a host in the n-type doped organic layer of the organic light emitting device taught by Liao, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Xia and Liao according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with the electron transport benefits, as taught by Xia. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Conclusion
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