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 .
Election/Restrictions
After reconsideration of the requirement of election of species set forth in the Office action dated 12/03/2025, and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement of election of species is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending and no claims are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on each of 05/27/2022 and 12/28/2022 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing filed 05/27/2022 is objected to because the single drawing is currently labeled as “FIG. 1”. According to 37 CFR 1.84 (u): "Where only a single view (single drawing) is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear."
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), the specification should be amended throughout to refer to “the FIGURE” rather than to “Figure 1”. See the original specification at least paragraph [0009] for correction and at any other occurrences of a reference to “Figure 1” that may be present.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least a chemical structure of Formulae I and II should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, it is suggested that "A nitrogen-containing spiral compound, having a structure shown in Formula I or Formula II" be changed to "A nitrogen-containing spiral compound[[,]] having a structure shown in Formula I or Formula II" for ease of reading;
in claims 2 and 3, it is suggested that "…wherein for the substituted aryl or heteroaryl, the substituent is one or more selected from…" be changed to "…wherein of the substituted aryl or heteroaryl is one or more selected from…" for ease of reading; and
in claim 4, it is suggested that "…wherein for the substituted phenyl… the substituent is one or more selected from…" be changed to "…wherein of the substituted phenyl… is one or more selected from…" for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the claims recite "where the one or more means one or two, one or three, or one or four." Claims 5 and 10 from which claims 7 and 12 depend, respectively, recite "wherein R1 is… a group formed by connecting any one or more of the substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic aryl, monocyclic heteroaryl, fused ring aryl and fused ring heteroaryl through a single bond or a N atom". The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if this limitation means that R1 is a group formed by connecting one, two, three, or four groups together or if there are further criteria to meet the claim due to the phrasing "one or two, one or three, or one or four."
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that R1 is a group formed by connecting one, two, three, or four groups together
Regarding claims 8 and 13, the claims recite "the second substituent". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, "the second substituent" will be interpreted as an optional further substituent.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites "The organic light-emitting device according to claim 18, comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic thin film layer between the anode and the cathode". Because claim 19 depends from claim 18, which also recites "an anode, a cathode and an organic thin film layer between the anode and the cathode", it is unclear if the device is required to include an additional anode, cathode, and organic film layer, or if claim 19 is referring to the anode, cathode, and organic film layer already recited in claim 18. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that claim 19 is referring to the anode, cathode, and organic film layer recited in claim 18 and the device is not required to include two anodes, two cathodes, and two organic film layers.
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.
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 1-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. CN-108409680-A (hereinafter "Sun-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Sun-MT") in view of Bilgili et al. J. Phys. Chem. C 2021, 125, 4893−4908 (hereinafter "Bilgili").
It is noted that CN-108409680-A is cited on the IDS of 12/28/2022.
Regarding claims 1-15, 18, and 20, Sun teaches an organic light emitting device, comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and one or more organic compound layers on the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic compound layer includes a light emitting layer, the light emitting layer contains an organic electroluminescent material represented by a formula II (Sun-MT, page 3 of 11 lines 13 to 17 and page 2 of 11 lines 3-4)
PNG
media_image1.png
274
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Sun-CN, page 11), as a host material (Sun-MT, page 3 of 11 lines 19-24). The device displays light and is therefore a display device. Sun teaches specific examples of the organic electroluminescent material compounds on pages 13-18 (Sun-CN) including for example compounds 127 and 128
PNG
media_image2.png
183
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Sun-CN, page 17).
Sun does not teach a compound that meets one of the claimed Formula I or Formula II. For example, the compounds of Sun differ from the claimed compound in that the spiro group does not have two nitrogen atoms at the 4- and 5-position on the fluorene portion of the spiro group and instead has carbon atoms at those positions.
Bilgili teaches the molecular structure, conformational twisting, structural rigidity, and supramolecular packing play significant roles in spirobifluorene (SBF) derivative molecules photoluminescence behavior (abstract). Bilgili recites SBF derivatives with and without two nitrogen atoms at the 4- and 5-positions on the fluorene portion of the spiro group
PNG
media_image3.png
226
170
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Scheme 1). Bilgili teaches the SBF3 molecule has the highest increase in the PL intensity than the other SBF derivatives due to having a small perpendicular distance with the helical π···π stacking type between the stacking rings (page 4903, first column).
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 two carbons at the 4- and 5-positions for nitrogens, based on the teaching of Bilgili. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the PL intensity, as taught by Bilgili.
The modified compounds of Sun in view of Bilgili meet the claimed Formula II.
For examples, the modified compound of Sun in view of Bilgili is a compound of the claimed Formula II wherein:
Y is O or S;
R1 is an unsubstituted aryl group (a phenyl group); and
R2 is an unsubstituted aryl group (a phenyl group) and R3 is H.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. CN-108409680-A (hereinafter "Sun-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Sun-MT") in view of Bilgili et al. J. Phys. Chem. C 2021, 125, 4893−4908 (hereinafter "Bilgili") as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of D'Andrade US-20020197511-A1 (hereinafter "D'Andrade").
Regarding claim 19, Sun in view of Bilgili teaches the device comprising the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claim 18.
Sun in view of Bilgili does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the emitting layer comprises at least one phosphorescent compound and is thereby a phosphorescent emitting layer. However, Sun in view of Bilgili teaches the light emitting layer comprising the modified compound as a host, as discussed above.
D'Andrade teaches that phosphorescent dopants may be combined with fluorescent light emitting dyes in a phosphorescent organic light emitting device (¶ [0038]) and that multiple dopants may be used in order to tune the color of emission from a light-emitting layer (¶ [0039]).
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 modify the device of Sun in view of Bilgili by forming the light emitting layer comprising the at least one phosphorescent compound and a fluorescent light emitting dye, based on the teaching of D'Andrade. The motivation for doing so would have been to tune the color of emission from a light-emitting layer, as taught by D'Andrade.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, exemplified by Wang et al. CN 113845505 A (hereinafter "Wang" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Wang-MT"), which is cited on the IDS of 12/28/2022, teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and one or more organic material layers comprising a spirofluorene derivative amine compound (Wang-CN, page 7 of 10 line 25 to page 8 of 10 line 6) and teaches specific examples of the spirofluorene derivative amine compound on page 9 including, for example,
PNG
media_image4.png
358
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. However, Wang does not specifically teach a compound that corresponds to one of the compounds as claimed in claims 16 and 17. For example, the compounds of Wang differ from the claimed compound in that (1) the spiro group has two carbon atoms at the 4- and 5-position on the fluorene portion of the spiro group instead of two nitrogen atoms and (2) at the position corresponding to the claimed R2 is an amine substituent instead of H and at the position correspond to R3 is H instead of one of the specific substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl groups that are present on the compounds as claimed in claims 16 and 17. Further, the prior art does not provide a reason to modify Wang's compound such that both the spiro group has two nitrogen atoms at the 4- and 5-position on the fluorene portion of the spiro group and at the position corresponding to the claimed R2 is H and at the position correspond to R3 is one of the specific substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl groups that are present on the compounds as claimed to arrive at one of the compounds as claimed in claims 16 and 17 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR-20190080063-A teaches a compound of a general formula
PNG
media_image5.png
266
292
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 16) including compound
PNG
media_image6.png
175
180
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 27).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786