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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0127023, filed on 09/27/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/05/2023 and 05/29/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 12/05/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the preliminary amendment filed 12/05/2023, the claims, abstract, and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-11 were originally filed.
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2016/204406 A1, using the provided translation for references) in view of Mizuki et al. (US 2013/0234119 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 4-8, Lee discloses compound 129 (page 22 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 129 is derived from Lee Formula (1-I) (page 10 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Formula 1-I, Lee also teaches that Ra can be a substituted C6 to C30 aryl group (paragraph 0025, lines 1-3), and that examples of substituents include a cyano group (paragraph 0037, line 7).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when X1 to X6 are all a nitrogen atom, L1 is represented by instant Chemical Formula 2, L2 and L3 are a C6 arylene (phenylene), L4 and L5 are a single bond, Ar1-Ar4 are each a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, and Ar1 is substituted by a cyano group. In Chemical Formula 2, n is 3.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned cyano group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound including a ring containing at least one nitrogen at each of the substituents located at both ends of a linker, giving the compound a structure which is easy to accept electrons when an electric field is applied, which increases the amount of electron injection and allows for relatively strong electron transport characteristics (paragraph 0100) and whose charge injection characteristics, deposition temperature, and glass transition temperature can be controlled depending on the number of nitrogen atoms included in each substituent, bonding pattern of the linking group, and number of arylene groups in the linking group (paragraph 0101), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Lee does not fairly suggest including a cyano group as a cyano substituent on the compound.
In analogous art, Mizuki teaches an organic electroluminescence device which has a host material comprising at least one cyano group, which can be used in a device with prolonged lifetime (abstract).
Mizuki teaches that a cyano group is an electron injecting/transporting group, and when a host material includes a cyano group, it has improved hole resistance. Therefore, an organic electroluminescence device including a host material with a cyano group exhibits prolonged lifetime relative to an organic electroluminescence device comprising a host material with no cyano group (paragraph 0127).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electron injecting/transporting cyano group on the electron injecting/transporting compound of Lee in order to give the compound improved hole resistance, and subsequently give an organic electroluminescence device including the cyano-substituted material prolonged lifetime relative to an organic electroluminescence device comprising a host material with no cyano group, as taught by Mizuki.
With respect to claim 2, Lee and Mizuki teach the compound of claim 1, and L1 is a terphenyldiyl group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 3, Lee and Mizuki teach the compound of claim 1, and L1 has the structure of the third embodiment on the first line of the claim, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Lee and Mizuki teach the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound 129 is derived from Lee Formula (1-I) (page 10 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Formula 1-I, Lee also teaches that Ra1 can be a C6 aryl group (paragraph 0025, lines 1-3), such as phenyl (paragraph 0073, line 3, see also compounds 4-6, 16-18, etc. which comprise three phenyl groups and one biphenyl group).
Such a modification produces the second compound on the first row of page 7 of the claims dated 12/05/2023.
PNG
media_image3.png
340
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination of a cyano substituent and third phenyl group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound including a ring containing at least one nitrogen at each of the substituents located at both ends of a linker, giving the compound a structure which is easy to accept electrons when an electric field is applied, which increases the amount of electron injection and allows for relatively strong electron transport characteristics (paragraph 0100) and whose charge injection characteristics, deposition temperature, and glass transition temperature can be controlled depending on the number of nitrogen atoms included in each substituent, bonding pattern of the linking group, and number of arylene groups in the linking group (paragraph 0101), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Lee and Mizuki teach the compound of claim 1, and Lee also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an organic material layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0253) comprising an electron injection layer and an electron transport layer (an auxiliary layer, paragraph 0264).
Lee also teaches that the taught compounds have excellent electron injection and electron transport properties (paragraph 0099). Similarly, Mizuki teaches that when a host material includes a cyano group, it has improved hole resistance. Therefore, an organic electroluminescence device including a host material with a cyano group exhibits prolonged lifetime relative to an organic electroluminescence device comprising a host material with no cyano group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound as a material in the electron transport layer of a device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Lee.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2018/0114917 A1) – teaches relevant compounds with m-phenylene groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights