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
This application claims foreign priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2021-0174018 (12/07/2021).
A certified copy of the non-English foreign priority document was received and acknowledged. A certified English translation is not of record but may become necessary as per MPEP 213.04 and 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-20 are pending.
Applicant amended claims 1 and 10.
Any claim rejection not reiterated in this office action is withdrawn.
Restriction / Election
In the response dated 10/23/2024, Applicant elected the species of Compound 619 as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As detailed in the following rejections, the generic claim encompassing the elected species was not found patentable. Therefore, the provisional election of species is given effect, the examination is restricted to the elected species only, and claims not reading on the elected species are held withdrawn. MPEP 803.02; Ex parte Ohsaka, 2 USPQ2d 1460, 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. lnt. 1987).
Should applicant, in response to this rejection of the generic claim, overcome the rejection through amendment, the amended claim will be reexamined to the extent necessary to determine patentability of generic claim. See MPEP 803.02.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant amended the claims to include the following new language:
PNG
media_image2.png
178
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and stated “[s]upport for the amendment to claim 1 may be found at least by reference to claim 10.” Claim 10 is a claim to a series of species and does not provide literal support for the new claim language. Furthermore, a person skill in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed – there is no disclosure of any such “provided that …” language and it is unclear how several species support the new language. Thus, Applicant has not pointed out how the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “[MPEP] § 2163.04 [subsection] (I)(B) as written is a lawful formulation of the prima facie standard for a lack of written description rejection.”). Thus, claim 1 and those that depend therefrom are rejected.
New / Amended Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (Meng et al., CN110790782A) in view of Hong et al. (US20200058885) and Song et al. (Dyes and Pigments 114 (2015), p. 40-46).
Meng teaches “dark blue organic luminescent material” having the following generic structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
207
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Meng’s generic structure encompasses instant claim 1. Meng also teaches an embodiment of compound 1c along with experimental demonstrations of utility as an LED (Example 2; Figures 1-3). Specifically, under Example 2 is stated:
The electroluminescence (EL) test results of the OLED are shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that the deep blue organic light-emitting material 1c emits deep blue light, and has a very narrow light-emitting spectrum compared to the existing deep blue light material (the half-peak width is about 80 nm). (The half-peak width is about 28 nm, obviously not more than 40 nm), indicating that the color purity of the deep blue light emitted by the deep blue organic light-emitting material 1c is good.
Thus, Meng teaches success with compound 1c ([0029]; [0063]-[0068]):
PNG
media_image4.png
187
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and derivatives within the scope of Meng’s generic formula above where the selection of substituents on the generic structure can be adjusted to improve color purity and stability ([0027]: “The site-specific modification of the B/Bi-N host structural unit is realized, and the resonance effect between atoms in the dark blue organic light-emitting material is enhanced, so that it can obtain a very narrow emission spectrum (the half-peak width is less than 40nm), thus making its blue light Color purity is improved and stability is enhanced.”; [0073]). Meng also teaches and claims compound 79 which is structurally related to compound 1c and within the scope of Meng’s genus of claim 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
149
155
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Meng differs from claim 10’s compound 251:
PNG
media_image6.png
244
364
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in that Meng does not specifically teach the two triphenylsilyl substituents as circled above.
Hong teaches blue OLED material ([0072]) of generic structure Formula 1-2A (claim 8) which encompasses instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
262
388
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the Ra1-4, b104, R12, R13, R22, R23 substituents include triphenylsilyl or trimethylsilyl and R32 includes carbazole. Hong also teaches the following example (claim 13, p. 78; hereafter referred to as “compound Z”):
PNG
media_image8.png
366
383
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and the following compound (claim 13, p. 81; hereafter “compound Y”):
PNG
media_image9.png
393
389
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Hong demonstrates experimentally that silyl substitutions on the generic structure has “excellent efficiency and lifetime” compared to examples not having the silyl substituents, as well as improved heat resistance and resistance to decomposition, thereby providing LEDs with high stability ([0227]).
Song teaches the introduction of triphenylsilane substituent groups to a series blue LED compounds with the expectation of improved properties (p. 40: “The introduction of triphenylsilane moieties into the anthracene-fluorene emitting cores provides a non-coplanar
structure, which effectively inhibits molecular aggregation and excimer formation in the solid state [14].”) and concluded that the approach provides great potential for applications as blue emitter OLEDs (p. 45: “These results demonstrated that anthracenefluorene derivatives with triphenylsilane groups have great potential for applications as blue emitter in OLEDs.”).
In view of the Meng’s success with compound 1c and teaching of compound 79, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered applying the known technique of introducing triphenylsilane substituents to obtain improved properties as was demonstrated by Hong and Song in the same field of endeavor of blue OLEDs. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the overlap in the generic formula of both Meng and Hong and allowing for such substitutions as suggested by Hong and Song. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have introduced the triphenylsilyl substituents on Meng’s compound 79 to improve efficiency, lifetime, and stability and arrived at the claimed invention of compound 251 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10 all read on instant compound 251 and thus are all rendered obvious.
Claims 11-20 are to an OLED and electronic apparatus comprising the compound of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Hong teaches a device including “a first electrode”, “a second electrode”, “an organic layer comprising the heterocyclic compound of claim 1” (claim 14 of Hong). Hong teaches every limitation of the device as recited in the instant claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Hong teaches “the emission layer comprises the heterocyclic compound” (claim 15 of Hong, “the organic material layer including the compound is a light emitting layer”).
Regarding claim 13, Hong teaches the further limitation of “the emission layer comprises a host and an emitter, the host and the emitter are different from each other, and the heterocyclic compound is included in the emitter.” (claim 17 of Hong, “the light emitting layer further includes a host material, and the host material is a compound represented by the following Formula 3”, and the Formula 3 is obviously different from the heterocyclic compound that Hong teaches as emitter).
Regarding claim 14 with a further limitation of “wherein blue light is emitted from the emission layer”, Hong teaches the further limitation at para. [0072], “The compound represented by Formula 1 and the compound containing a structural unit represented by Formula 1, each have at least one substituted or unsubstituted silyl group, or have a substituent group substituted with at least one silyl group. Thereby, in an organic light emitting device employing the same, particularly a blue thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) device and a blue fluorescent device, ...”
Regarding claim 15 with a further limitation of “wherein the emitter is a fluorescence emitter and/or a delayed fluorescence emitter”, Hong teaches the further limitation at para. [0072], “The compound represented by Formula 1 and the compound containing a structural unit represented by Formula 1 each have at least one substituted or unsubstituted silyl group, or have a substituent group substituted with at least one silyl group. Thereby, in an organic light emitting device employing the same, particularly a blue thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) device and a blue fluorescent device, the quantum efficiency can be improved as compared with an organic light emitting device employing a compound having no silyl substituent.”
Regarding claim 20 drawn to an electronic apparatus comprising the device of claim 11, Hong teaches a device including “a first electrode”, “a second electrode”, “an organic layer comprising the heterocyclic compound of claim 1” (claim 14 of Hong) which can be used as an OLED apparatus.
With each of the claims above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered producing an OLED and apparatus as suggested by Meng and Hong and arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success because the devices were specifically taught as the utility for each of the cited art and was well within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claims are obvious.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (Meng et al., CN110790782A) in view of Hong et al. (US20200058885) and Song et al. (Dyes and Pigments 114 (2015), p. 40-46) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-15, 20 above and further in view of Li et al. (US2023/0098353).
Claim 16 depends from claim 12 with a further limitation of “the emission layer comprises a host, an emitter, and a sensitizer, wherein the host, the emitter, and the sensitizer are different from each other.” As discussed above, claim 12 is obvious over Hong in view of Meng. Hong teaches the emission layer comprises a host (claim 17 of Hong), an emitter (also a dopant, according to claim 16 of Hong). Hong combined with Meng is silent on the emission layer comprising a host, an emitter, and a sensitizer, which are different from each other. Li remedies the deficiency. Li discloses at para. [0007] “The light-emitting layer contains a host material, a thermally activated delayed fluorescence sensitizer and a fluorescent dye.” Li further disclosed at para.[0018] “that the fluorescent dye is selected from the compounds F-1 to F-30”. Therefore, the fluorescent dye is the emitter as recited in the instant claim 16. Hong, Meng and Li and the current application all belong to the same technical field of organic light-emitting device, and it has become a common practice to add sensitizer to OLED emission layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hong, Meng and Li to add a sensitizer to the emission layer of Hong’s device, thereby reaching the instant claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the added limitation to its base claim 16 is “wherein blue light is emitted from the emission layer”. Hong teaches the further limitation at para. [0072], “The compound represented by Formula 1 and the compound containing a structural unit represented by Formula 1 each have at least one substituted or unsubstituted silyl group, or have a substituent group substituted with at least one silyl group. Thereby, in an organic light emitting device employing the same, particularly a blue thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) device and a blue fluorescent device,…”
According to the above discussion, the base claim 16 is obvious over Hong in view of Meng and Li, and Hong teaches the further limitation of claim 17, therefore claim 17 is obvious over Hong in view of Meng and Li.
Claim 18 depends from claim 16 with a further limitation of “wherein the emitter is a fluorescence emitter and/or a delayed fluorescence emitter.” Hong teaches at para. [0072], “The compound represented by Formula 1 and the compound containing a structural unit represented by Formula 1 each have at least one substituted or unsubstituted silyl group, or have a substituent group substituted with at least one silyl group. Thereby, in an organic light emitting device employing the same, particularly a blue thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) device and a blue fluorescent device, the quantum efficiency can be improved as compared with an organic light emitting device employing a compound having no silyl substituent.”. Hong teaches the emitter to be a blue thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) device and a blue fluorescent device. According to the above discussion, the base claim 16 is obvious over Hong in view of Meng and Li, and Hong teaches the further limitation of claim 18, therefore claim 18 is obvious over Hong in view of Meng and Li.
Regarding claim 19, the added limitation compared to its base claim 16 is “the sensitizer and the heterocyclic compound satisfy Condition 5:
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
”.
In condition 5 above, Tdecay is a decay time of the heterocyclic compound. Tdecay is determined by the heterocyclic compound of formula 1. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. According to the above discussion, the base claim 16 is obvious over Hong in view of Meng and Li, and the further limitation of claim 19 is an inherent property. Therefore, Claim 19 is considered obvious over Hong in view of Meng and Li, same as its claim 16.
Response to Remarks Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not prima facie obvious provides and an unexpected result as shown in Table 8 of the specification.
As detailed above in the amended claim rejection, the prior art does establish prima facie obviousness of compound 251. Thus, the argument is not persuasive for the reasons provided in the rejection above.
Examiner has again considered the results of the table and not found it persuasive as to establish an unexpected result that is commensurate in scope with the claims. First, the table describes Example 1, 2, and 5 vs. Comparative Example 1 where the difference among the compounds appears to primarily be the lack of a carbazole group and not the addition of a two triphenylsilyl groups which was the difference from the cited art. Furthermore, the structures of the compounds from the table are not commensurate in scope with the vast possible substitutions of claim 1’s Formula 1-1. Second, as was detailed in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, the expected result was an improved efficiency and (“excellent efficiency and lifetime”) as well as improved heat resistance and resistance to decomposition, thereby providing LEDs with high stability (Hong [0227]). Thus, the alleged unexpected result was actually expected. As a result, weighing the evidence of record by a preponderance of the evidence results in the conclusion that the claims remain obvious over the prior art of record. The 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained as amended above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H HAVLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 am-6:00 pm EST.
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, Robert Havlin can be reached on 571-272-9066. 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.
/ROBERT H HAVLIN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1626