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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 12/04/2025, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 1-14 as failing to comply with the enablement requirement and as failing to comply with the written description requirement, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 14 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
In light of Applicant’s arguments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-6 and 9-14 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (WO 2018/237385 A1) as evidenced by Nakanotani et al. (JP 2017/126656 A, using US 2019/0036033 A1 as an official translation and for references), and of claims 7 and 8 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as evidenced by Nakanotani above and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu, J.Y., Feng, X., Seto, N., Do, J.H., Zeng, X., Tao, Z., Yamato, T., 2013, Synthesis, structural and spectral properties of diarylamino-functionalized pyrene derivatives via Buchwald-Hartwig amination reaction, Journal of Molecular Structure 1035, 19-26), are withdrawn by the Office.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “represent” in line six of the claim is missing the letter “s”. Please correct this.
PNG
media_image1.png
34
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanotani et al. (US 2019/0036033 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Nakanotani discloses a light emitting material (paragraph 0127) which comprises a donor and acceptor compound which form an exciplex and emit delayed fluorescence (instant condition (2)), and an adjustment compound (spacer compound) (paragraph 0007, section [1]).
Nakanotani teaches that preferably the compounds have the following HOMO/LUMO relationships (Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
400
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These conditions satisfy instant Formulae (A), (B1), and (B2).
Nakanotani teaches an example of the donor compound is preferably represented by general formula [15] (paragraphs 0057 and page 11), which includes compounds such as 17a (page 13), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
460
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nakanotani also teaches that the acceptor and adjustment compounds are preferably the compounds below (T2T and mCBP, paragraph 0145 and page 41).
PNG
media_image4.png
318
665
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 17a and mCBP are interpreted to meet the requirements of the donor and adjustment compounds, respectively, of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as set forth on pages 9 (Compound 17a) and 15 (mCBP) of the instant specification. Similarly, acceptor compound T2T is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it both conforms to the instantly claimed structure for an acceptor compound and the instantly claimed HOMO/LUMO relationship set forth in Nakanotani’s Figure 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Nakanotani read on the claims.
Nakanotani is silent to the compounds specific HOMO and LUMO values. However, these values are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as donor, acceptor, and adjustment compounds in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Nakanotani, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Nakanotani was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Further, in view of the teachings of Nakanotani, although contained in different layers, Examiner is interpreting Nakanotani as effectively disclosing an emission layer comprising a light emitting material comprising a donor compound in a donor compound sublayer and an acceptor compound in an acceptor sublayer that form an exciplex, and an adjustment compound in a spacer sublayer between the donor and acceptor sublayers.
Nakanotani includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Nakanotani being a lack of the aforementioned combination of donor, acceptor, and adjustment compound 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 donor, acceptor, or adjustment compound from each of the finite lists of possible compounds to arrive at the material of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a material comprising a donor and acceptor compound which can form an exciplex to radiate delayed fluorescence, and a spacer compound with higher excited triplet energy than the excited triplet energy of the exciplex, resulting in a high degree of probability of reverse-intersystem-crossing, and an organic electroluminescent device comprising the material which exhibits delayed fluorescence and high emission efficiency (paragraph 0031), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 2, Nakanotani teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting (donor) Compound 17a to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as set forth on page 9 of the instant specification. Similarly, (acceptor) compound T2T is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it conforms to the instantly claimed structure for an acceptor compound. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Nakanotani read on the claims.
Nakanotani is silent to the compounds specific HOMO values. However, these values are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as donor and acceptor compounds in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Nakanotani, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Nakanotani was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 3, Nakanotani teaches the light emitting material of claim 1, as discussed above.
(Donor) Compound 17a and (spacer/adjustment compound) mCBP are interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as set forth on pages 9 (Compound 17a) and 15 (mCBP) of the instant specification. Similarly, (acceptor) compound T2T is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it conforms to the instantly claimed structure for an acceptor compound. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Nakanotani read on the claims.
Nakanotani is silent to the compounds lowest excited triplet energy level values. However, these values are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as donor, acceptor, and adjustment compounds in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Nakanotani, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Nakanotani was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 4, Nakanotani teaches the material of claim 1, and Nakanotani also teaches that the adjustment compound (mCBP) is present in the adjustment layer as the only compound (paragraph 0145).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the claimed range of “30% by mass or more” overlaps with a concentration of 100%. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 5, Nakanotani teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above.
(Donor) Compound 17a and (spacer/adjustment compound) mCBP are interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as set forth on pages 9 (Compound 17a) and 15 (mCBP) of the instant specification. Similarly, (acceptor) compound T2T is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it conforms to the instantly claimed structure for an acceptor compound. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Nakanotani read on the claims.
Nakanotani is silent to the emission intensity from the donor-acceptor exciplex (compound 17a and T2T) and the emission intensity of the adjustment (spacer) compound (mCBP). However, these values are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as donor, acceptor, and adjustment compounds in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Nakanotani, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Nakanotani was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 6, Nakanotani teaches the material of claim 1, and Nakanotani also teaches that the invention may also be drawn to a constitution wherein the energy of the exciplex is transferred to a light emitting material, wherein light emission occurs from the light-emitting material (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 a light emitting compound in addition to the compounds which form an exciplex, as taught by Nakanotani.
With respect to claim 9, Nakanotani teaches the material of claim 1, and Nakanotani also teaches that the material exhibits delayed fluorescence (paragraph 0074).
With respect to claim 13, Nakanotani teaches the material of claim 1, and Nakanotani also teaches the material may be used in a device such as an electroluminescent display device (paragraph 0114).
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 material in a display device, as taught by Nakanotani.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakanotani et al. (US 2019/0036033 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu, J.Y., Feng, X., Seto, N., Do, J.H., Zeng, X., Tao, Z., Yamato, T., 2013, Synthesis, structural and spectral properties of diarylamino-functionalized pyrene derivatives via Buchwald-Hartwig amination reaction, Journal of Molecular Structure 1035, 19-26).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Nakanotani teaches the light emitting material of claim 6, as discussed above.
However, while Nakanotani teaches that the light emitting material used is not particularly limited (paragraph 0130), Nakanotani does not teach nor fairly suggest selecting a material which would result in emission intensity which is at least 10 times the emission intensity of the exciplex or at least 50 times the emission intensity of the adjustment compound.
In analogous art, Hu teaches diarylamino-functionalized pyrene derivatives which have bright fluorescent emissions from sky-blue to green, high emission efficiency, high thermal stability, and good solubility in common organic solvents (abstract).
Hu teaches one of these compounds is compound 10a, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
198
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 compound 10a of Hu as the emitter in the light emitting material of Nakanotani in order to obtain bright fluorescent emissions from sky-blue to green, high emission efficiency, high thermal stability, and good solubility in common organic solvents, as taught by Hu.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 60 (4DPA-Pyr) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hu reads on the claims.
Hu is silent to the emission intensity of the compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when compound 10a is used as a light emitting compound in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Nakanotani and Hu, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hu was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakanotani et al. (US 2019/0036033 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (WO 2018/237385 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Nakanotani teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Nakanotani does not teach nor fairly suggest that the organic light emitting device is a light emitting diode.
In analogous art, Suzuki teaches a light emitting material which exhibits delayed fluorescence for use in an organic light emitting diode (abstract).
Suzuki teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) is a type of organic light emitting device (page 90, lines 1-9).
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 light emitting material of Nakanotani in an organic light emitting diode, as taught by Suzuki.
With respect to claim 11, Nakanotani teaches material of claim 1, as discussed above.
Nakanotani also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer (paragraph 0088) comprising a light emitting layer, and the light emitting layer comprises the material of claim 1 (the donor, spacer, and acceptor layers) (paragraph 0089).
However, Nakanotani does not teach nor fairly suggest that the device is an organic light emitting diode.
In analogous art, Suzuki teaches a light emitting material which exhibits delayed fluorescence for use in an organic light emitting diode (abstract).
Suzuki teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) is a type of organic light emitting device (page 90, lines 1-9).
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 light emitting material of Nakanotani in an organic light emitting diode, as Suzuki teaches an organic light emitting diode is a known species of the genus organic light emitting device.
With respect to claim 12, Nakanotani teaches material of claim 6, as discussed above.
Nakanotani also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer (paragraph 0088) comprising a light emitting layer, and the light emitting layer comprises the material of claim 1 (the donor, spacer, and acceptor layers) (paragraph 0089).
However, Nakanotani does not teach nor fairly suggest that the device is an organic light emitting diode.
In analogous art, Suzuki teaches a light emitting material which exhibits delayed fluorescence for use in an organic light emitting diode (abstract).
Suzuki teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) is a type of organic light emitting device (page 90, lines 1-9).
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 light emitting material of Nakanotani in an organic light emitting diode, as Suzuki teaches an organic light emitting diode is a known species of the genus organic light emitting device.
With respect to claim 14, Nakanotani teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Nakanotani does not teach nor fairly suggest a method which would result in an OLED display with the instant device structure.
In analogous art, Suzuki teaches a light emitting material which exhibits delayed fluorescence for use in an organic light emitting diode (abstract).
Suzuki also teaches a method of producing an OLED display comprising the steps of forming a barrier layer on a base material, forming plural display units on the barrier layer, each on a cell panel basis, forming an encapsulation layer on each display unit of the cell panel, and forming an organic film by coating on the interface portion between the cell panel, wherein the organic film contains the light emitting material (page 92, lines 24-31).
Suzuki teaches that this method reduces the defect rate of the product and stabilizes product quality (page 95, lines 28-29).
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 form an OLED using the material of Nakanotani using the method of Suzuki in order to reduce the defect rate of the product and stabilize product quality, as taught by Suzuki.
Conclusion
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/ Examiner, Art Unit 1786