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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites an OLED comprising an EBL and a light emitting layer (LEL) comprising 3 compounds of formulae 1, 2 and 3. The device is described as having superior performance parameters, such as lower driving voltage, higher efficiency and longer lifetime, compared to devices missing at least one of the compounds. However, the description is confusing and unconvincing. For example, the devices of inventive example 3 and comparative example 8 differ only in the first compound: compound 1-3 versus compound CE-1,
PNG
media_image1.png
214
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
198
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
But compound CE1 is an actual species of the generic compound of formula 1: Y1 = S, L1 = direct bond, X1 = N, Ar1 = C6 aryl, Ar2 = substituted C12 heteroaryl containing S, and R1 = C6 aryl with a = 1. Thus, the device of the comparative example 8 is representative of the claimed device and yet it produces undesirable results. The inconsistent description raises the question as to whether the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 7 is 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. The 3rd compound on page 233 is fragmented, rendering the claim incomplete.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. This claim does nothing more than listing the 6 bonding modes of the compound of formula 3 in claim 1. In other words, it restates claim 1 in a slightly different format but does not alter the scope of claim 1 in any way.
Examiner’s Other Remarks
While claim 1 recites an OLED wherein the EML comprises 3 compounds, it does not preclude embodiments in which the first compound is identical to the third compound, i.e., L2 = Y1-containing heterocyclic group and R1 = the carbazolyl structure containing rings B and C. The following 103 rejection is based on the assumption that the 3 compounds are different from one another, and the 102 rejection is for the case where compounds 1 and 3 may be identical to each other.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0111969 A1 to No et al.
Regarding claim 1, No et al. discloses an OLED having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/EBL/EML/HBL/ETL/EIL/cathode (p. 72), wherein the EML comprises 2 host materials having the following formulae:
PNG
media_image3.png
364
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
306
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Examples of the first host material include
PNG
media_image5.png
414
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image6.png
556
448
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
These two compounds are representative of the claimed compounds of formulae 1 and 3, respectively, wherein the correspondence between compound 1 and formula 1 is as follows: Y1 = O, L1 = direct bond, X1 = N, Ar1,2 = C6 aryl, and R1 = C12 heteroaryl having a N, and the correspondence between compound 6 and formula 3 is as follows: L2 = C12 heteroarylene having an S, X2 = N, Ar5,6 = C6 aryl, ring B is benzene, ring C is formula 4-1 with Y2 = NAr7 where Ar7 = C6 aryl, and R4 = H. The prior art second host material, exemplified by
PNG
media_image7.png
310
520
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
is identical to the claimed compound of formula 2. While No et al. fails to disclose an example of a device in which the EML comprises two or more compounds of at least one type of host materials, such as a combination of compounds 1, 6 and 2-1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to make and use such OLED without expecting any difficulty nor criticality. Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). So are claims 2-6, 7 (see, for example, the 4th compound on page 193), 8-13 and 15-17.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0111969 A1 to No et al.
No et al. is described above. In one example (see example 16 in Table 19 on page 124), the EML comprises, as the host materials, a combination of compounds 135 and 2-16:
PNG
media_image8.png
358
324
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
298
354
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
Here, compound 135 is representative of the claimed compounds of formulae 1 and 3 wherein the correspondence between compound 135 and formula 1 is as follows: Y1 = O, L1 = direct bond, X1 = N, Ar1,2 = C6 aryl, and R1 = C18 heteroaryl having a N, and the correspondence between compound 135 and formula 3 is as follows: L2 = C12 heteroarylene having an O, X2 = N, Ar5,6 = C6 aryl, ring B is benzene, ring C is formula 4-1 with Y2 = NAr7 where Ar7 = C6 aryl, and R4 = H. Compound 2-16 is representative of the claimed compound of formula 2 wherein one of R3 and R4 is phenyl and the other is a C18 aryl group. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 1-5, 8-11, 13 and 15-17. The device of claim 12 is disclosed in example 18 (the first compound on page 309 is identical to the prior art compound 2-7).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733.
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.
/VU A NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762