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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification includes compound structures with small and pixelated bonds with atom labels that are difficult to discern. For example, compounds such as, but not limited to, Formula 513 to 520 contain atom labels that are difficult to read.
PNG
media_image1.png
329
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 3, 5, and 7 include compound structures with small and pixelated bonds and atom labels that are difficult to discern. For example, compounds such as, but not
PNG
media_image2.png
139
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Claim 8 is a use claim that recites "an application" of the tetrastyrene-based compound according to claim 1, that does not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, claim 8 fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP2173.05(q).
Claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claim 8 attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process and is, therefore, indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(q).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (CN107216261A, hereinafter "Sun"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
In the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices, Sun teaches an organic light-emitting material with a tetraphenylethene core and an organic light-emitting device thereof including the specific compound 1, shown below featuring a diphenylamino group appended from the core (abstract, description pg 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
1103
1256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 of Sun is a compound of instant Formula 1 in instant claim 1 wherein:
X1 is selected from C(X9)(X10) wherein;
X9 and X10 are H;
X2, X4, and X5 are H;
X3 is an arylamine with general formula 2 wherein;
X6 and X7 are H.
Therefore, the compound 1 of Sun anticipates instant claim 1.
Claims 1 and 8-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (CN108516970, hereinafter "Tang"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
In the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices, Tang discloses hetero-ring bridging phenyl ethylene derivatives such as compound 4, shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
1216
1473
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 4 of Tang is a compound of instant Formula 1 in instant claim 1 wherein:
X1 is selected from S;
X2 and X5 are H;
X3 and X4 is an arylamine with general formula 2 wherein;
X6 and X7 are H.
Therefore, the compound 4 of Tang anticipates instant claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-10, Tang discloses Example 4, an organic light-emitting device containing Compound 4 in the emissive layer (EML) with the following device structure: ITO, MoO3, NPB, TCTA, EML, BmPyPB, LiF, and Al (Table 1, description pg 9-10). Therefore, the device of Tang including Compound 4 in the EML anticipates the electronic device of instant claim 8 and instant claim 9 wherein the electronic device comprises a substrate, an anode, a cathode, and more than one organic material layers interposed between the anode and the cathode. The device structure of Tang anticipates instant claim 10 wherein the organic material layer comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, an electron injection layer, and an electron transport layer respectively.
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN108516970, hereinafter "Tang") as applied to claims 1 and 8-10 described above. Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
In the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices, Tang teaches the hetero-ring bridging phenyl ethylene derivatives of general formula 1 that includes a group of formula C such as compound 4, described above, wherein X is a sulfone, and there are two formula C attached to R3’ and R4’ of the formula 1, shown below (description pg 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
1258
4069
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tang does not necessarily limit the identity of formula 1 to resemble compound 4 wherein X is a sulfone and R3’ to R4’ are unsubstituted formula C. Tang defines X as preferably sulfone, nitrogen or oxygen (description pg 2, claim 1). Tang teaches that structures containing the core “heterocyclic anthracene” may contain a nitrogen resembling an ‘acridine’-like structure wherein the nitrogen are substituted when phenyl groups as seen in structures e, f, g, h, and i (Description pg 4). Tang defines R1 to R6 with R1’ to R4’ is the same or different electron donor groups such as, but not limited to, substituted diphenylamino wherein R7, R7’, R8, R8’, R9, and R9’ are hydrogen or alkyl. Tang teaches that tetraphenylethylene derivatives of the Formula 1 of Tang may be used in OLED devices resulting in a narrow half-peak width and high color purity featuring a low startup voltage and minimal device efficiency roll-off (Table 1, description pg 11).
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 substitute the Compound 4 of Tang wherein R2’ is the electron donor group represented by Formula C of Tang and X is either nitrogen substituted with phenyl or oxygen in the light-emitting device of Tang, based on the teachings of Tang. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with a narrow half-peak width and high color purity featuring a low startup voltage and minimal device efficiency roll-off as taught by Tang (Table 1, description pg 11).
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 the Compound 4 of Tang wherein R2’ is the electron donor group represented by Formula C of Tang and X is either nitrogen substituted with phenyl or oxygen because it would have been choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the tetraphenylethylene derivative in the emissive layer of the light-emitting device of Tang and possessing the benefits taught by Tang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1 of Tang having the benefits of a narrow half-peak width and high color purity featuring a low startup voltage and minimal device efficiency roll-off as taught by Tang in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success (Table 1, description pg 11). See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting compounds where (1) X is O is the Modified Compound O-1 of Tang and (2) X is N is the Modified Compound N-1 of Tang.
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Modified Compound O-1 reads on instant claim 4 wherein X3, X4, X6, and X7 are H, and the Modified Compound N-1 reads on instant claim 6 wherein X3, X4, X6, and X7 are H.
Claims 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN108516970, hereinafter "Tang") as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, and 8-10 described above in view of Li et al. (CN111233675, hereinafter "Li"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
Tang teaches the tetraphenylethylene-based compounds and device that reads on claims 1, 4, 6, and 8-10 as described above; however, Tang fails to teach the compound of instant formula 3 wherein X1 is a dimethyl carbon of instant claim 2 or any of the tetrastyrene-based compounds represented in instant claims 3, 5, and 7.
In the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, Li teaches an organic tetrastyrene compound and its application in organic electroluminescent devices wherein the compound follows the general formula below such as compound 105 where the appended amino group is substituted with a dimethyl-fluorene and an ortho-biphenyl group, shown below (description pg 3-4, pg 8). Therefore, an amino group substituted with a fluorene and an ortho-biphenyl group is a known and acceptable configuration for a tetrastyrene compound.
PNG
media_image7.png
669
2082
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound 105 of Li is similar to the compound 4 of Tang in that: (1) both compounds have a tetrastyrene core with an amino group appended; (2) two of the phenyl groups in the tetrastyrene core are unsubstituted and unfused; (3) the other two of the phenyl groups in the tetrastyrene core are fused in an anthracene-like structure; and (4) the appended amino groups feature aryl substitution. The compound 105 of Li is dissimilar to the compound 4 of Tang in that the compound 105 of Li features a benzo-fused ring to the anthracene-like core and the compound 4 of Tang features a sulfone whereas compound 105 features a carbon atom in the anthracene-like core. Lastly, the amino group is attached to the anthracene-like core in the compound 105 of Li whereas the amino group is attached to the phenyl group in the compound 4 of Tang.
Li teaches that the compounds of the general formula of Li may be applied to organic light-emitting devices providing for good thermal stability, high glass transition temperatures, and suitable HOMO energies that improve the optoelectronic performance and lifespan of OLED devices (description pg 2). Li demonstrates the performance of fabricated OLED devices demonstrating improvements in efficiency, lifespan, device service life and a stable efficiency at a wide range of temperatures (Table 6-7, pg 26).
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 substitute the Modified Compound O-1 and N-1 of Tang to include the amino-substitution, including the dimethylfluorene and ortho-biphenyl groups, of Compound 105 of Li based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with high efficiency, lifespan, device service life and a stable efficiency at a wide range of temperatures as taught by Li (Table 6-7, pg 26).
The resulting Modified Compound O-2 and Modified Compound N-2 of Tang and Li are shown below.
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Modified Compound O-2 reads on instant claim 5 and is the same as instant Formula 407. The Modified Compound N-2 reads on instant claim 7 and is the same as instant Formula 501.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN107216261A, hereinafter "Sun") as applied to claim 1 described above in view of Li et al. (CN111233675, hereinafter "Li"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
Sun teaches the Compound 1 of Sun that reads on instant claim 1, as described above and shown again below; however, Sun fails to teach the tetrastyrene compound following Formula 3 of instant claim 2 wherein the carbon group in the core is substituted with a dimethyl group and the diphenylamino group is attached at the fused core instead of the phenyl group.
PNG
media_image9.png
913
1033
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, Li teaches an organic tetrastyrene compound and its application in organic electroluminescent devices wherein the compound follows the general formula below such as compound 105, described above (description pg 3-4, pg 8). Therefore, an amino group substituted with a fluorene and an ortho-biphenyl group is a known and acceptable configuration for a tetrastyrene compound.
PNG
media_image7.png
669
2082
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound 105 of Li is similar to the compound 1 of Sun in that: (1) both compounds have a tetrastyrene core with an amino group appended; (2) two of the phenyl groups in the tetrastyrene core are unsubstituted and unfused; (3) the other two of the phenyl groups in the tetrastyrene core are fused in an anthracene-like structure; and (4) the appended amino groups feature aryl substitution. The compound 105 of Li is dissimilar to the compound 1 of Sun in that the compound 4 of Li features a benzo-fused ring to the anthracene-like core and the amino group is attached to the anthracene-like core in the compound 105 of Li whereas the amino group is attached to the phenyl group in the compound 1 of Sun.
Li teaches that benzylic carbons and doubly benzylic carbons are preferably substituted with dimethyl groups as seen in compounds 30-35 (description pg 7). Li teaches that the compounds of the general formula of Li may be applied to organic light-emitting devices providing for good thermal stability, high glass transition temperatures, and suitable HOMO energies that improve the optoelectronic performance and lifespan of OLED devices (description pg 2). Li demonstrates the performance of fabricated OLED devices demonstrating improvements in efficiency, lifespan, device service life and a stable efficiency at a wide range of temperatures (Table 6-7, pg 26).
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 substitute the Compound 1 of Sun to include a dimethyl benzylic carbon and the amino-substitution, including the dimethylfluorene and ortho-biphenyl groups, of Compound 105 of Li based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with high efficiency, lifespan, device service life and a stable efficiency at a wide range of temperatures as taught by Li (Table 6-7, pg 26).
The resulting Modified Compound of Sun and Li is shown below.
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The Modified Compound of Sun and Li reads on instant claim 2 and instant claim 3 because it is the same as Formula 304.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCAS Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Fridays 7:45 am to 12:00 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 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/L.Q.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights