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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the general formula, description, and specific embodiments do not match. Note that the objection applies to the “Substitute Specification (Clean Version)” as was requested by applicant.
Applicant introduces General Formulas (a) and (b) for a p-type material displaying a partially saturated ring at position R4 in General Formula (a) and a partially saturated ring R3 in General Formula (b) shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
1187
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, applicant later describes General Formulas (a) and (b) as having a connection between two carbazoles, provided in a screenshot below (pg 22, ¶ [0092]).
PNG
media_image2.png
269
1268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, applicant provides specific embodiments of the General Formula (a) displaying a modified carbazole where a ring is partially saturated shown below. The specific embodiments are also objected to because the second and third compounds are the same because of a bond rotation for the biphenyl attached to the carbazole. In addition, the specific embodiments do not include the compound p_2 of the experimental example.
PNG
media_image3.png
703
739
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the General Formulas (a) and (b), the description, and the specific embodiments do not match and the confusion lies wherein:
The general formula and the specific embodiments correctly display a saturated ring for a carbazole unit OR
The description is correct and both the general formula and the specific embodiments should display a fully aromatic carbazole unit.
The examiner has chosen to interpret the above as both (1) OR (2) for the purposes of the specification.
The specification is also objected to because the specific embodiments do not match the General Formulas (i), (ii), and (iii), both shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
485
1577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
674
995
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For example, General Formula (ii) displays a fused seven-ring system where the 6 membered rings adjacent to X2 and adjacent to X1 contain a partially saturated system. However, the specific embodiments of General Formula (ii) include the structures wherein:
Structure 1, X2 is O, X1 is S, and R6 is triphenylene
Structure 2, X2 is Se, X1 is S, and R6 is triphenylene
Structure 1 and Structure 2 are not compounds of General Formula (ii) because both contain a fully aromatic ring adjacent to X1. Therefore, the General Formulas (i) - (iii), and the specific embodiments do not match and the confusion lies wherein:
The general formulas correctly display a saturated ring OR
The specific embodiment is correct and the general formula should display a fully aromatic ring.
The examiner has chosen to interpret the above as both (1) OR (2) for the purposes of the specification.
Compound n_2, shown below, is objected to for missing a bond in the triphenylene moiety attached to the triazine, and thus, does not match the structure of the specific embodiments above. Compound n_2, as well as numerous other chemical structures in the specification, is missing bonds in aromatic rings.
PNG
media_image6.png
505
512
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 1-20 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 contain 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.
Independent claim 1 requires a light-emitting device comprising of a light-emitting layer including a host material that includes a p-type and an n-type materials wherein the p-type material and the n-type material form an exciplex, and must satisfy the condition where the difference in the HOMO (p-type) and LUMO (n-type) is less than or equal to 0.2eV. Claim 1 does not further define the n-type and p-type materials by specific structures or general formulae. Claim 5 defines the HOMO energy of the p-type material and n-type material but does not further define the p-type and n-type material by a specific structure or general formula. Claim 6 defines the LUMO energy of the p-type material and n-type material but does not further define the p-type and n-type material by a specific structure or general formula. Claim 14, dependent on claim 1, further requires that the p-type material is selected from general formula (a) and (b) featuring two connected carbazoles, but does not define the n-type material by specific structures or general formulae. Claim 15, dependent on claim 1, further requires that the n-type material is selected from general formula (i) – (iii) featuring a fused multi-ring system containing a carbazole, but does not define the p-type material by specific structures or general formulae. Thus, as the and n-type materials are so broadly defined in claims 1, 5, 6, and 14, they may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds. Similarly, as the p-type materials are so broadly defined in claims 1, 5, 6, and 15, they may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds.
The instant description recites the p-type material may be represented by general formula (a) and general formula (a) wherein two carbazoles are connected (¶ [0089] - [0094]). The instant description recites the n-type material may be represented by general formula (i) - (iii) wherein an extended fused ring system containing a carbazole is attached to a heterocycle. The instant description provides 4 examples of the p-type material and 5 examples of the n-type material. However, the description only provides only 1 example of combinations of p-type and n-type materials which meet the required HOMO difference of less than or equal to 0.2 eV. In this example, only one example of a p-type material and only one example of an n-type material is shown to fulfill the HOMO requirements of claim 5, the LUMO requirements of claim 6, and the structural requirements of claim 14 and 15.
Thus, the specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable for the n-type and p-type materials, but provides no further description of which pairs of compounds of general formula (a) and (b) combined with general formula (i) – (iii) might meet the HOMO energy relationships of claims 1. The one example described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
Claims 2-20 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1, fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 16 and 17 are dependent on claim 1 where a light-emitting device further comprises an additional electron blocking layer and hole blocking layer, respectively. The electron blocking layer in claim 16 is disposed between the first electrode and light-emitting layer wherein the difference between the absolute value of the p-type HOMO energy level and the absolute value of the electron blocking material HOMO energy level is less than or equal to 0.3 eV. The hole blocking layer in claim 17 is disposed between the second electrode and the light-emitting layer wherein the difference between the absolute value of hole blocking LUMO energy level and the absolute value of the n-type material LUMO energy level is less than or equal to 0.3 eV. Claim 16 and claim 17 does not further define the electron blocking or hole blocking materials by specific structures or general formulae. Thus, as the electron blocking and hole blocking materials are so broadly defined in claims 16 and 17, they may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds.
The instant description does not recite any general formula for the hole blocking layer, but provides one preferred embodiment as “2,9-dimethyl-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline” (¶ [0109]). The instant description does not recite any general formula for the electron blocking layer, but provides one preferred embodiment as “N-(9,9'-spirobi[fluoren]-2-yl)-N(9,9-diphenyl-9H-fluoren-3- yl)dibenzo[b,d]furan-3-amine” (¶ [0111]). However, the description does not provide the LUMO energy of either preferred embodiments of the electron blocking layer material or the hole blocking layer material to satisfy the limitation that the compounds’ LUMO energy difference can be less than or equal to 0.3 eV.
Thus, the specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable for the hole blocking and electron blocking materials, but provides no further description of which pairs of compounds of general formula (a) and (b) combined with general formula (i) – (iii) might meet the HOMO energy relationships of claims 16 and 17. The one example described for each the electron blocking material and hole blocking material in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
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 14-15 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 claim 14, applicant introduces General Formulas (a) and (b) for a p-type material displaying a partially saturated ring at position R4 in General Formula (a) and a partially saturated ring R3 in General Formula (b) shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
1187
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, applicant describes General Formulas (a) and (b) in the specification as having a connection between two carbazoles, provided in a screenshot below (pg 22, ¶ [0092]).
PNG
media_image2.png
269
1268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claims because claim 14 shows a general formula containing a carbazole attached to an indoline fused to a partially unsaturated six-membered ring. The structure of the indoline fused to a partially unsaturated six-membered ring is considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be unstable and readily aromatizes into a carbazole.
Regarding claim 15, general formula (i) displays a partially unsaturated ring adjacent to X2, general formula (ii) displays partially unsaturated rings adjacent to X2 and X1, and general formula (iii) displays a partially unsaturated ring adjacent to X1. The instant specification teaches that specific embodiments do not follow the claimed general formula (i) – (iii), wherein the specific embodiments contain fully aromatic rings not found in the general formula.
The confusion arises because the general formula in instant claims 14 and 15, the description, and specific embodiments in the instant specifications do not match wherein:
The general formulas correctly display a saturated ring OR
The specific embodiment is correct and the general formula should display a fully aromatic ring.
The examiner has chosen to interpret the claims 14 and 15 as both (1) OR (2).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (WO2017158475A1, hereinafter "Takahashi").
Regarding claims 1-3 and 14, Takahashi discloses, in the art of organic light-emitting diodes, an organic light emitting device containing a light-emitting element between two electrodes wherein the light-emitting element includes a first organic compound and a second organic compound that form an exciplex together. (¶ [0017] – [0020]). Takahashi discloses that preferred embodiments of the light-emitting element further include a guest material (¶ [0022]). Takahashi discloses that preferred a combination of host materials wherein the highest occupied molecular orbital (hereinafter HOMO) of the first compound is higher than the HOMO of the second compound in order to efficiently form an exciplex (¶ [0048]). Takahashi discloses an organic light-emitting device containing Element 100 wherein the first compound is 4,6mPCP2Pm and the second compound PCCP, shown below.
PNG
media_image7.png
943
1698
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound PCCP is a compound of instant claim 14 general formula (a) displaying a connection between two carbazoles where L1 and L2 are single bond and Ar1 and Ar2 are phenyl. Takahashi teaches that compound PCCP has a HOMO of -5.63 eV and 4,6mPCP2Pm has a HOMO of -5.81 eV (Table 4, Table 12). The second compound PCCP reads on the p-type material of instant claim 1 and 14. The first compound 4,6mPCP2Pm reads on the n-type material of instant claim 1.
Therefore, the HOMO of the n-type material is lower than the HOMO of the p-type material wherein the difference in their energy level is 0.18 eV which is less than or equal to 0.2 eV. See calculation below.
PNG
media_image8.png
280
965
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the difference in the absolute values of the LUMO for the n-type material and the LUMO for the p-type material is 0.81 eV which is greater than or equal to 0.2 eV of instant claim 3. See calculation below
PNG
media_image9.png
320
1040
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the device of Takahashi containing element 100 with compound PCCP and 4,6mPCP2Pm anticipates instant claims 1-3 and 14.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses the manufacture of the device containing sample 1 where compound 1 (4,6mCzP2Pm) and compound 2 (PCBBiF) can form an exciplex and are deposited by co-evaporation such that the deposited film has a weight ratio of compound 1 to compound 2 is 0.8:0.2 (pg 145, line 20-30). Takahashi discloses that the fabricating methods for light-emitting elements 2 to 292 are similar to the fabricating method of light-emitting element 1 (pg 150, line 1-10). Therefore, the device of Takahashi containing element 100 with compound PCCP and 4,6mPCP2Pm in a weight ratio of 0.8:0.2 anticipates the weight ratio of instant claim 4 of greater than or equal to 2:8 and less than or equal to 8:2.
Regarding claim 5, the compound PCCP of Takahashi has a HOMO energy of -5.63 eV which anticipates the HOMO energy range of instant claim 5 of greater than or equal to -5.8 eV and less than or equal to -5.3 eV. The compound 4,6mPCP2Pm of Takahashi has a HOMO energy of -5.81 eV which anticipates the HOMO energy range of instant claim 5 of greater than or equal to -6.0eV and less than or equal to -5.5 eV. Therefore, the device of Takahashi containing element 100 with compound PCCP and 4,6mPCP2Pm anticipates instant claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi discloses an organic light-emitting device containing element 147 containing a first compound (35DCzPPy) and a second compound (Cz2DBT) (Table 5). Takahashi discloses 35DCzPPy having a HOMO energy of -5.9 eV and a LUMO energy of -2.39 and compound Cz2DBT having a HOMO energy of -5.86 and a LUMO energy of -2.33 (Table 13). The device of Takahashi anticipates instant claim 1 wherein the absolute value of the difference in energy of the HOMO of the p-type and n-type materials is 0.04, which is under 0.2 eV of instant claim 1. The device of Takahashi anticipates instant claim 6 where the LUMO of Cz2DBT is -2.33 eV which is greater than or equal to -2.5 eV and less than or equal to -2.0 eV. In addition, the LUMO of 35DCzPPy is -2.39 eV which is greater than or equal to -2.8 eV and less than or equal to -2.33 eV of instant claim 6.
Regarding claims 18-20, the instant specification discusses that the light-emitting apparatus includes a light-emitting “substrate” that may include other components such as a circuit used for providing an electrical signal for the light-emitting substrate to drive the light-emitting substrate to emit light (instant specification, ¶ [0045]). Takahashi discloses that the light-emitting element can be formed using any of a variety of substrates including but not limited to a semiconductor substrate, an SOI substrate, a glass substrate, a quartz substrate, a plastic substrate, a flexible substrate, and a metal substrate. Takahashi discloses a transistor or a light-emitting element may be provided directly on the substrate wherein the light-emitting element can be transferred to a substrate having a flexible substrate (pg 55 ¶ [0168] – [0175]). The instant specification discusses the light-emitting substrate may emit white light via a plurality of light-emitting devices including a light-emitting device that emits red light, a light-emitting device that emits green light, and a light-emitting device that emits blue light, such that a “device” is a light emitting layer (instant specification, ¶ [0058]). Takahashi discloses Embodiment 1 wherein a light-emitting element 450, in FIGS. 1A and 1B, includes a pair of electrodes and an EL layer 400 that further includes at least one light-emitting layer 430 (pg 10, ¶ [0036] – [0041]). Takahashi discloses Embodiment 2 in FIGS. 4A to 4C and 5A to 5C including a plurality of light-emitting elements and different light-emitting mechanisms of the light-emitting elements (pg 56, ¶ [00176]). Takahashi further discloses that the light-emitting element 460 includes a plurality of light-emitting units between a pair of electrodes wherein one light-emitting unit has the same structure as the EL layer 400 in FIG. 1A. Therefore, the light-emitting device containing Element 100 of Takahashi wherein the first compound is 4,6mPCP2Pm and the second compound PCCP anticipates instant claim 18 – 20 wherein at least one light-emitting “device” as described by the instant specification of the plurality of light-emitting devices is the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (WO 2019105327A1, hereinafter "Pan"), in view of Takahashi et al. (WO2017158475A1, hereinafter "Takahashi"). Note that a machine-generated English translation of the foreign language document is included in the office action.
Pan teaches in the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices an organic composite film between two electrodes featuring two compounds M1 and M2 wherein M1 can be selected from small molecules and polymers of the general formula (3) featuring two connected carbazoles and M2 can be selected from small molecules and polymers of a skeleton with the general formula of triazine or carbazole shown below (¶ [0054]-[0071], [0327]).
PNG
media_image10.png
927
3267
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Pan teaches that devices containing compounds M1 and M2 can form an exciplex so that the organic composite film has high stability and can improve the device performance (¶ [0005] – [0012], [0039]).
Pan teaches device 1 containing compound 1-13 and 9-16, shown below, wherein compound 1-13 is a compound of General Formula 3 of Pan where the carbazole nitrogen is substituted with biphenyl and compound 9-16 is a compound of General Formula Triazine of Pan where u is the number of units in the polymer of the subunit structure shown (Table 2, ¶ [0005]).
PNG
media_image11.png
788
2730
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Pan teaches that compound 1-13 has a HOMO energy of -5.44 eV and a LUMO energy of -2.22 eV (Table 1).
Pan teaches that in some cases, preferred embodiments of compounds M1 and M2 that contain smaller HOMO energy differences, but not zero, can display improved light-emitting characteristics and efficiencies (Table 3).
Pan teaches that the OLED device based on the composition of device 1 where M1 is 1-13 and M2 is 9-16 can be manufactured with a solution concentration of 5 mg/mL where the thickness of the layer containing M2 materials is 65 nm and the thickness with the layer containing M1 material is 20 nm. One of ordinary skill in the art would estimate the weight ratio to be proportional to the thickness of the layer wherein the ratio of M2 to M1 would be about 76:24.
However, Pan fails to teach a combination of M1 and M2 that reads on instant claim 1 where the HOMO energy difference in the p-type and n-type materials is less than or equal to 0.2 eV.
Takahashi teaches in the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices a light-emitting element including two organic compounds that form an exciplex (pg 4, ¶ [0017]). Takahashi further teaches that the invention is a method for increasing luminous efficiency in the case where two compounds form an exciplex wherein efficient energy transfer from the singlet excited state of one compound to a single excited state of a second compound to provide for a light-emitting element with low power consumption and high luminous efficiency (pg 3-4, ¶ [0014] - [0016]). Takahashi teaches that the two organic compounds that can form an exciplex where one of the compounds has a function of transporting holes and the other be a compound having a function of transporting electrons such that a donor-acceptor exciplex is formed easily wherein the weight ratio of the compound having a hole-transport property to the compound having an electron transport property is preferably within a range of 1:9 to 9:1 (pg 12, ¶ [0047]). Takahashi teaches that the combination of materials where: (1) the HOMO level of one compound is higher than the HOMO level of the second compound of at least 0.05 eV and (2) the LUMO of one organic compound is higher than the LUMO level of the second facilitates efficient formation of an exciplex (pg 3-4, ¶ [0014] - [0016]).
Takahashi further teaches a device with Element 2 containing a first compound PCBAPDBq and a second compound PCzPCN capable of forming an exciplex wherein: (1) PCBAPDBq is a compound of Pan’s M2 General Formula Carbazole and (2) PCzPCN is a compound of Pan’s M1 General Formula (3) where L1 is a nitrogen linker (Table 3).
Takahashi teaches that PCBAPDBq has a HOMO energy level of -5.47 eV and a LUMO energy level of -2.91 eV (Table 11).
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 have
substituted the compound PCBAPDBq of Takahashi with the M2 compound 9-16 of Pan, based on the teachings of Pan and Takahashi. The motivation for doing so would have been to select a compound with a HOMO energy level difference greater than 0 but still close in energy to drive efficient exciplex formation towards a device high in light-emitting and luminous efficiency as taught by Pan and Takahashi.
Such a modified device of Pan and Takahashi would read on instant claims 1-4. The calculation for the difference in energy to read on claim 1 and claim 3 are shown below.
PNG
media_image12.png
671
1058
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (WO 2019105327A1, hereinafter "Pan"), in view of Miao et al. (CN109326741, hereinafter "Miao").
Pan teaches device 1 containing compound 1-13 and 9-16, shown below, wherein compound 1-13 is a compound of General Formula 3 of Pan where the carbazole nitrogen is substituted with biphenyl and compound 9-16 is a compound of General Formula Triazine of Pan where u is the number of units in the polymer of the subunit structure shown (Table 2, ¶ [0005]).
PNG
media_image11.png
788
2730
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Pan further teaches other structures that are suitable for use as compound M2 featuring a skeleton of General Formula triazine including the structures shown below (¶ [0256]).
PNG
media_image13.png
810
2460
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Compound 6-1 features a triazine core connected to a triphenylene group. Therefore, triphenylene are known and acceptable moieties for the triazine skeleton of the general formula M2 of Pan. Another compound features a connected carbazole connected at the N-position to the triazine. Therefore, a carbazole connected at the N-position to the triazine is a known and acceptable moiety for the triazine skeleton of the general formula M2 of Pan. Another compound features a fused indolocarbazole connected at the N-position to the triazine core, compound 1-5 (¶ [0263]). Takahashi teaches that compound 1-5 featuring the fused indolocarbazole has a HOMO energy of -5.57 eV which is higher in energy compared to 9-16, leading to a smaller but greater than 0 eV HOMO energy difference. Therefore, a fused indolocarbazole connected at the N-position to the triazine core is a known and acceptable moiety for the triazine skeleton of the general formula M2 of Pan.
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 have
modified the compound 9-16 of Pan with the triphenylene moiety of Pan and a carbazole derivate of Pan, based on the teachings of Pan. The motivation for doing so would have been to generate a compound with a HOMO energy level difference greater than 0 but still close in energy to drive efficient exciplex formation towards a device high in light-emitting and luminous efficiency as taught by Pan.
Furthermore, 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 9-16 with a triphenylene and fused indolocarbazole because it would have been choosing a compound with a lower HOMO energy, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the M2 compound layer of the composite layer generating an exciplex for the organic light-emitting device of Pan and possessing the benefits taught by Pan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the triazine skeleton of the general formula M2 of Pan comprising a triazine with a triphenylene group and an indolocarbazole having the benefits taught by Pan in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified composition of Pan is shown below.
PNG
media_image14.png
1012
2311
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Pan teaches all the limitations above including a triazine connected to a fused five-ring system; however, Pan fails to teach a triazine connected to a fused seven-ring system of the instant General Formula (i) – (iii).
In the relevant art of organic-light emitting devices, Miao teaches triazine compounds towards OLED devices with high luminous efficiency and long life (Description, ¶ [0003]). Miao teaches compounds 54, 70, 71, and 72, which are compounds of Pan triazine skeleton for the general formula of M2 shown below.
PNG
media_image15.png
1249
1757
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Compound 54 is a compound of Pan featuring an indolocarbazole attached to a phenyl linker and triazine core. Compounds 70 to 72 feature an extended 7-ring fused system attached to triazine. Compounds 70 to 72 show that nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur are suitable heteroatoms for the 7-ring fused system. Therefore, an extended 7-ring fused system, as taught by Miao, attached to triazine core is a known and acceptable moiety especially for the replacement of indolocarbazole for the triazine core.
Miao also teaches that the preferred embodiments and compounds display both high efficiency and lifetime in OLED materials (Table 1).
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 have
modified the Modified Composition of Pan with the extended 7-ring fused system of Miao, based on the teachings of Pan and Miao. The motivation for doing so would have been to generate a compound with a HOMO energy level difference greater than 0 but still close in energy to drive efficient exciplex formation towards a device high luminous efficiency and long lifetime as taught by Pan and Miao.
Furthermore, 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 modified composition of Pan by replacing the indolocarbazole with the extended 7-ring fused system containing N, O, or S of Miao because it would have been choosing a compound with a modified HOMO energy and long luminous efficiency and long lifetime of Miao, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the M2 compound layer of the composite layer generating an exciplex for the organic light-emitting device of Pan and possessing the benefits taught by Pan and Miao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the triazine skeleton of the general formula M2 of Pan comprising a triazine with a triphenylene group and an extended 7-ring fused system containing N, O, and S having the benefits taught by Pan and Miao in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The Modified Composition of Pan and Miao is shown below.
PNG
media_image16.png
1227
2525
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The Modified Composition of Pan and Miao contains compound 1-13 of Pan featuring two connected carbazoles which is a compound of instant claim 14 general formula (a). The compound 1-13 of Pan is same as the instant preferred embodiment compound p_2 of applicant. Note that the examiner is interpreting instant compound P_2 as fully aromatic. The modified composition of Pan and Miao contains a triazine compound which is a compound of instant claim 15 general formula (i). The triazine compound of the Modified Composition of Pan and Miao is the same as the instant preferred embodiment found in instant specification ¶ [0101]. Note that the examiner is interpreting the instant preferred embodiment as fully aromatic.
Regarding instant claim 1, Pan and Miao appear silent with respect to the property of the HOMO, LUMO, S1, and T1 energy levels as well as the mobility parameter of compounds in the Modified Composition of Pan and Miao.
The instant specification recites that compound p_2 and n_2 have the HOMO, LUMO, S1, T1 and Mobility values as reproduced below in instant Table 1.
PNG
media_image17.png
310
589
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Since Pan and Miao teach the Modified Composition of Pan and Miao including compounds 1-13 and a substituted triazine, the same structure and a substantially identical structure, respectively as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of HOMO, LUMO, S1, T1 and mobility is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
For example, the compound 1-13 in the Modified Composition of Pan and Miao is the same as compound p_2. Furthermore, the triazine compound is identical to a compound of the instant preferred embodiment; however, the applicant has not provided the HOMO, LUMO, etc. energy levels of each of their preferred embodiments. The applicant has provided a singular example of a n-type compound, compound n_2 shown below, with included parameters.
PNG
media_image18.png
246
215
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Instant compound n_2 is similar in all aspects to the triazine compound in the Modified compound of Pan and Miao including the triazine core substituted with a phenyl, triphenylene, and a 7-ring fused system containing O, N, and S. The only difference between the compounds is the attachment site of the fused benzothiophene system. Note that the examiner is choosing to interpret instant compound n_2 as a triphenylene moiety and a completely aromatic system.
Because the compounds are identical and the energy levels expected to be identical or near identical, the Modified Composition of Pan and Miao reads on claims 1 and 5-15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCAS Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Fridays 7:45 am to 12:00 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, 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.
/L.Q.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786