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 § 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (English translation of KR 20190007789 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jung (US 2018/0337348 A1).
Regarding claims 1-13, Jin teaches an organic light emitting device having high efficiency and long lifespan by comprising a light emitting layer including a compound represented by Chemical Formula A and a heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula D (second half of pg. 2). Examples of such devices include Example 1 which comprises an anode, a light emitting layer including a first host of Compound H1 and a second host of Formula E1, and a cathode (bottom of pg. 82; Table 1 on pg. 84).
Compound H1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formulas 2 and 3 (pg. 13).
H1:
PNG
media_image1.png
182
241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image2.png
126
201
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image3.png
98
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound H1 reads on the claimed Formulas 2 and 3 wherein:
X is O;
R1 is a substituent of Chemical Formula 3 and R2 to R10 are each hydrogen;
L’, L3 and L4 are each a single bond (claims 10-11); and
Ar3 and Ar4 are each an unsubstituted C12 aryl of biphenylyl (claim 12).
Additionally, Compound H1 reads on the claimed formula 2-1 (claim 9) and reads on the first claimed compound on pg. 204 (claim 13).
Formula E1 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1. However, Formula E1 is a compound represented by Chemical Formula D, and compounds represented by Chemical Formula D are not limited to Formula E1 (beginning of pg. 6 and bottom of pg. 24).
Jung teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 provides an organic light emitting device with improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and/or improved lifetime when used as a host material of a light emitting layer (¶ [0018]). Jung teaches examples of compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 including Compound 1, as shown in the device of Example 1 (Table 1 on pg. 234).
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 substituted Formula E1 with a compound of Jung’s Chemical Formula 1 (and specifically Compound 1 as shown in Jung’s Example 1), based on the teaching of Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and/or improved lifetime, as taught by Jung.
Compound 1 reads on Jin’s Chemical Formula D wherein: one HAr4 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 14 carbon atoms and one HAr4 is a substituted heteroaryl group having 3 carbon atoms; L is a single bond; n1 and n2 are each 1; m1 is 2; Az is represented by Structural Formula 6; Z1 to Z8 are each C-H or C connected to the linker L; and Y is O (see Jin, bottom of pg. 7 to beginning of pg. 8). Accordingly, the modified device of Example 1 including Jung’s Compound 1 is expected to obtain the benefits of Jin and Jung.
Jung’s Compound 1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1 (see Jung, structure on pg. 165).
Compound 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
253
media_image4.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
223
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
L, L1 and L2 are each a single bond (claims 2-3);
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl of phenyl (claim 4);
R is an unsubstituted C14 aryl of phenanthryl (claims 5-6); and
a is 1.
Additionally, Compound 1 reads on the claimed Formula 1-6 wherein: R’ is an unsubstituted C14 aryl and d is 0 (claim 7), and reads on the claimed second compound on pg. 34 (claim 8).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights