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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0134734, filed on 10/12/2021.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 10/27/2022, the claims, specification, drawings, and abstract were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 6, 21, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 1-24 are pending in the application.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification contains an inconsistency with respect to the formulae which define the first and second compounds. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of the inconsistency include compounds referred to as "the second compound" which are not derived from Formula 2, and instead, are derived from Formula 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Formula 6 is pictured in independent claim 1, but is not actually referred to until claim 21. It would make more sense to have Formula 6 in claim 21 for ease of reference.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 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 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 requires a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2. The instant description provides no examples of such a combination that meets this requirement. Every example in the instant specification comprises one compound of Formulae 1 or 2, and one compound of Formula 6. The instant independent claim does not even require a compound of Formula 6.
This is increasingly complicated by dependent claims such as claim 3, which requires that the first and second compound have different inherent chemical properties. Applicant has given no examples of two compounds of Formulae 1 and 2 which meet these properties, nor how to arrive at compounds which could reasonably meet these requirements. Indeed, Formula 1 and Formula 2 appear to be identical in both structure and limitations, so it is impossible to tell if Applicant even knew how to arrive at compounds with different singlet/triplet energy levels and/or different HOMO/LUMO energy levels, let alone had possession of such compounds. The limited examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 2-24 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-24 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.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim contains superfluous Formula 6, which appears to not be needed until claim 21. The presence of Formula 6 in independent claim 1 makes the bounds of claim 1 unclear because it is not clear whether Formula 6 is required by the claim or not.
In continuing examination, Formula 6 will not be considered until claim 21, which is the only claim which requires Formula 6.
Also with respect to independent claim 1, the first compound of Formula 1 and the second compound of Formula 2 appear to have identical limitations. This could be interpreted in two different ways including
At least one emitting material layer comprises at least one compound of Formula 1, and at least one compound of Formula 2, and
The compounds are identical, or
The compounds have at least one difference
In continuing examination, this will be interpreted as requiring one compound of Formula 1 and one compound of Formula 2, wherein the compounds can be identical or different.
With respect to claim 8, the claim requires that the second compound is selected from Formulae 7A through 7C, none of which fall within the limitations of parent Formula 2. Thus, the scope of the instantly claimed second compound is unclear.
In continuing examination, any compound which meets the requirements of parent Formula 2 will be interpreted as satisfying the requirements of instant claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, the claim requires that the second compound is selected from compounds 2-1 through 2-36, none of which fall within the limitations of parent Formula 2. Thus, the scope of the instantly claimed second compound is unclear.
In continuing examination, any compound which meets the requirements of parent Formula 2 will be interpreted as satisfying the requirements of instant claim 9.
With respect to claim 20, the layer order claimed is ambiguous. It is not clear what order of layers Applicant is attempting to claim.
Applicant states that the third emitting layer is “disposed oppositely to the second emitting material layer with respect to the first emitting layer”.
This could be interpreted as the third emitting layer being on the opposite side of the second layer from the first layer (i.e., first, second, third layer order).
This could also be interpreted as the second layer being on the opposite side of the first layer from the third layer (i.e., second, first, third layer order).
In continuing examination, the layer order will be interpreted as encompassing either of these interpretations.
Claims 2, 4-7, 10-19, and 21-24 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 3 has not been rejected as it clearly requires two different compounds.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are 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, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 8, the claim requires that the second compound is selected from Formulae 7A through 7C, none of which fall within the limitations of parent Formula 2.
With respect to claim 9, the claim requires that the second compound is selected from compounds 2-1 through 2-36, none of which fall within the limitations of parent Formula 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/143819 A1, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode) (paragraph 0236), and an emissive layer between the two electrodes wherein the emissive layer comprises a compound of the invention (paragraph 0237), such as Compound 1-1 (paragraph 0296), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
166
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from General formula (1) (paragraph 0020), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
216
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama also teaches that m is 1 (paragraph 0021, line 9), and Ra is an substituted heteroaryl group (paragraph 0021, line 7), and particularly preferred examples of the heteroaryl group include carbazolyl (paragraph 0088, lines 26-29), and examples of the substituent include an alkyl group having 2 or 4 carbon atoms (paragraph 0088, lines 31-32).
Such a modification produces a first compound of instant Formula 1 wherein X1 and X2 and oxygen atoms, R1 through R5 and R7 through R11 are hydrogen atoms, and R6 represents a bond to Formula 2. In Formula 2, R12 and R13 are a C1 alkyl (methyl) group and m and n are each 1.
Such a modification also produces a second compound of Formula 2 wherein R12 and R13 are each a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, m and n are each 2, and the asterisk represents a bond to R6 of Formula 1. In Formula 1, X1 and X2 and oxygen atoms, and R1 through R5 and R7 through R11 are hydrogen atoms.
Hatakeyama teaches that preferably, the organic light-emitting device of the invention comprises at least one compound of the invention. Hatakeyama also teaches that compounds of the invention have excellent hole mobility and electron mobility and are useful as electronic devices such as organic light-emitting elements and organic TFTs.
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 two compounds of the invention in the light emitting layer of a device with the claimed device structure in order to obtain a compound with excellent hole mobility and electron mobility which is also useful in an electronic device such as organic light-emitting elements and organic TFTs, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 2, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the combination of compounds discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compounds 1-39 and 1-40) 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 compounds of Hatakeyama read on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the difference in energy level of the HOMO of the first and second compounds. 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 the compounds are used as materials in the emissive 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 Hatakeyama, 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 Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 3, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the combination of compounds discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compounds 1-39 and 1-40) 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 compounds of Hatakeyama read on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the difference in bandgap of the excited singlet and excited triplet energy levels of the first and second compounds. 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 the compounds are used as materials in the emissive 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 Hatakeyama, 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 Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 4, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting at least one of the compounds discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compounds 1-39 and 1-40) 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 compounds of Hatakeyama read on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the energy bandgap between the HOMO and LUMO levels of the compounds. 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 the compounds are used as materials in the emissive 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 Hatakeyama, 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 Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 5, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting at least one of the compounds discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compounds 1-39 and 1-40) 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 compounds of Hatakeyama read on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the onset wavelength of the compounds. 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 the compounds are used as materials in the emissive 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 Hatakeyama, 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 Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 6, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, and the first compound has the structure of Formula 3 when p is 1, R15 is represented by Formula 4, m and n are 1, and R17 and R18 are each a C1 alkyl (methyl) group.
With respect to claim 7, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, and the first compound is represented by Compound 1-39.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, and the second compound is represented by Formula 2, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 10 through 12, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the device may have a single layer (“the light-emitting layer”, paragraph 0237), and may also comprise a third compound (a host, paragraph 0237). Hatakeyama also teaches that the amount of the host is 50% or more, and the amount of the guest (compounds of instant Formulae 1 or 2) is 50% or less (paragraph 0239).
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 amount of host material overlaps with the claimed range, and the amount of boron-containing compound also overlaps with the claimed range. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 24, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches a substrate (paragraph 0247).
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 the diode on a substrate, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/143819 A1, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2020/0203627 A1).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 11, as discussed above.
However, while Hatakeyama teaches the emission layer may further comprise a third compound (a host material, paragraph 0237), Hatakeyama does not teach an example of a suitable host material.
In analogous art, Miyazaki teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising a polycyclic compound with a boron-containing electron-donor and amine-derivative electron-acceptor moiety for use in the emission layer (abstract).
Miyazaki also teaches that the emission layer may comprise a host material, and as an example, CBP, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
288
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that the instant invention uses mCBP as a host material, which is a meta-bonded positional isomer of CBP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of CBP in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host material to a polycyclic boron-containing compound in the emissive layer of the electroluminescent device of Hatakeyama and be useful as a host material, as taught by Miyazaki. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
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 positional isomer of CBP as a host material in the light emitting layer of Hatakeyama, as taught by Miyazaki.
Examiner is interpreting mCBP to meet the requirements of the instant third compound through its use as a host of the claimed invention, as given on page 78 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 isomeric compound of Miyazaki reads on the claims.
Further, Examiner is also interpreting the combination of compounds of Formulae 1 and 2, discussed above, to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on page 27 (compounds 1-39 and 1-40) 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 compounds of Hatakeyama read on the claims.
Hatakeyama and Miyazaki are silent to the excited triplet energy levels and excited singlet energy levels of the first, second, and third compounds. 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 these compounds are used as materials in the emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama and Miyazaki, 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 Hatakeyama and Miyazaki were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claims 15-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/143819 A1, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0052226 A1).
With respect to claims 15-20, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Hatakeyama does not teach the multilayer structure and energy level relationships of claims 15-20.
With respect to claims 15-20, Seo teaches an organic electroluminescent device with a multilayer structure, comprising compounds with specific energy level relationships (abstract).
Seo teaches the energy diagram in Figure 8, which is pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image4.png
562
822
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This energy level diagram describes the instantly claimed invention when EML1 of Seo is the instant first emitting material layer, EML2 of Seo is the instant second emitting material layer, EML3 of Seo is the instant third emitting material layer, Comp. 2 of Seo is the instant first compound, Comp. 4 of Seo is the instant second compound, Comp. 1 of Seo is the instant third compound, Comp. 3 of Seo is the instant fourth compound.
With respect to claim 15 specifically, the diagram describes a device wherein the first emitting layer comprises a first compound, and the second emitting layer comprises the second compound.
With respect to claim 16 specifically, the first emitting layer includes a third compound and the second emitting layer further includes a fourth compound.
With respect to claim 17 specifically, the excited triplet energy level of the third compound (Comp. 1) is higher than the excited triplet energy level of the first compound (Comp. 2), and the excited triplet energy level of the first compound is higher than the excited triplet energy level of the second compound (Comp. 4).
With respect to claim 18 specifically, the excited singlet energy level of the third compound (Comp. 1) is higher than the excited singlet energy level of the first compound (Comp. 2) and the excited singlet energy level of the first compound is higher than the excited singlet energy level of the second compound (Comp. 4).
With respect to claim 19 specifically, the excited singlet energy level of the fourth compound (Comp. 3) is higher than the excited singlet energy level of the second compound (Comp. 4).
With respect to claim 20 specifically, the third emitting layer is disposed on the opposite side of EML1 from EML 2.
Seo teaches that these energy level relationships are essential to efficient energy transfer and implementing efficient light emission (paragraph 0097), and that efficient luminescence can be achieved by considering the energy levels of the luminescent materials in each emission layer (paragraph 0098).
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 adopt the claimed layer order and compounds with the claimed energy level relationships in order to achieve efficient luminescence and efficient energy transfer, as taught by Seo.
With respect to claim 22, Hatakeyama teaches the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest a second emitting part between the first emitting part and second electrode, and a charge generation layer between the two emitting layers.
In analogous art, Seo teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising multiple layers with specific energy level relationships which results in excellent luminous efficiency (abstract).
Seo teaches Figure 9, with a first emitting unit (430), a second emitting unit (530), and a charge generation layer (600) disposed between the first and second emitting units (paragraph 0168).
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 device structure taught by Seo and include a charge generation layer between a first and second light emitting units with a reasonable expectation of forming a device with excellent luminous efficiency, as taught by Seo.
With respect to claim 23, Hatakeyama and Seo teach the diode of claim 22, and Seo also teaches that the device may comprise a color filter to adjust the color emitted from the diode. In this respect, the diode is able to emit any light, including red or green.
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 incorporate a color filter into the diode of Hatakeyama and Seo in order to obtain red or green light, as taught by Seo.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/143819 A1, using the provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama 2016) in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0052226 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2015/102118 A1, using the provided translation for references, herein after referred to as Hatakeyama 2015).
With respect to claim 21, Hatakeyama 2016 and Seo teach the diode of claim 20, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama 2016 nor Seo teach an organic compound of Formula 6.
In analogous art, Hatakeyama 2015 teaches polycyclic aromatic compounds for use in the light emitting layer (paragraph 0331) of an organic electroluminescent element (paragraph 0001) which have a large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy (paragraph 0035) and display thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) (paragraph 0035).
Hatakeyama gives an example of the inventive compound in Compound (1-401) (paragraph 0016), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
222
244
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 6 when q, r, s, and t are 0 so that R25, R26, R27, and R28 are not present, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms.
Examiner would like to note that in the third emission layer of Seo should comprise a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material as the seventh compound (paragraph 0132).
Hatakeyama 2015 teaches that the compounds of the invention provide an excellent organic EL device when a layer comprises the compound.
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 thermally activated delayed fluorescent material of Hatakeyama 2015 as the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material of the third emission layer of Hatakeyama 2016 and Seo in order to obtain a compound with a large HOMO-LUMO gap, high triplet excitation energy, TADF emission, and which provides an excellent EL device, as taught by Hatakeyama 2015.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin et al. (US 2021/0104682 A1) – teaches relevant device structure.
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
Prosecution Insights