DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 05/12/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 3-5, 8-15, and 20 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0341556 A1), and of claims 16-19 as being unpatentable over Takahashi above and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2020/0006676 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 2 and 6-7 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-21 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 1, there are two commas at the end of the definition of C11 to C14 on page 3 of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
60
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, “Formulae” on line 5 should be singular.
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 4 and 9 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 claims 4 and 9, the claims contain embodiments of A11 which are specific to canceled Formula 12. These embodiments include Formulae 3-12, 3-14, and 3-16.
In continuing examination, only Formulae 3-11, 3-13, and 3-15 will be considered.
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 4 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 claims 4 and 9, the claims contain embodiments of A11 which are specific to canceled Formula 12. These embodiments include Formulae 3-12, 3-14, and 3-16.
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
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, 3-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2021/0119032 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a compound of chemical formula 1, such as compound 4-3 (Table 3, page 9 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
374
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee also teaches that in parent chemical formula 1, any of A1 through A16 may be the substituted arylamine group (paragraph 0011 and Formula 2-45 on page 7 of the original document).
Given the general formula and teachings of Lee, 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 Compound 4-3 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a delayed fluorescent material in the emissive layer of the electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the properties taught by Lee (paragraph 0016). 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.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 11 when X11 and X12 are carbon atoms, Y11 to Y16 are carbon atoms, Z11 to Z16 are carbon atoms, W11 and W12 are carbon atoms, A11 is a benzene group, C11 to C14 are each benzene, Rx and Ry are represented by Formula 2-1 (the arylamine), b11 is 1 and R11 is a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) group, b12 is 1 and R12 is a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) group, b13 and b14 are 0 and R13 and R14 are not present. In Formula 2-1, a21 is 0 and L21 is not present, and R21 and R22 are both a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) substituted C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
With respect to claim 3, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and A11 is represented by Formula 3-1 when X11 through X16 are carbon atoms, and X13 and X14 are W11 and W12 in Formula 11.
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and A11 is represented by formula 3-13, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 5, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and Rx and Ry are both represented by Formula 2-1, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is represented by instant Formula 11-1 for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and A11 is represented by instant formula 3-13, as pictured above.
Claims 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2021/0119032 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0341556 A1).
With respect to claims 11, 12, 13, and 15, Lee teaches the compound of claim 1,as discussed above.
However, while Lee teaches use of the compound as a material in the light emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, Lee does not teach the instantly claimed device structure.
In analogous art, Takahashi teaches similar compounds for use in the light emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device (an organic electroluminescence device) comprising a first and second electrode (anode and cathode) and an organic layer (paragraph 0075) comprising an emission layer between the electrodes and the emission layer comprises the compound as a fluorescent emitter (paragraph 0248), along with a host compound, and the host is present in an amount greater than the compound (paragraphs 0413 and 0417).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compound of Lee as a material of the emitting layer of an organic light emitting device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Takahashi.
With respect to claim 14, Lee and Takahashi teach the device of claim 13, and Lee also teaches that the compounds may emit light with a wavelength of 462 nm (paragraph 0097), which is within the range of blue color emission.
With respect to claim 20, Lee and Takahashi teach the device of claim 11, and Lee also teaches that organic electroluminescent devices may be used in a commercial organic electroluminescent display device (paragraph 0002).
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 of Lee and Takahashi in an electronic apparatus such as a display device, as taught by Lee.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2021/0119032 A, using the provided translation for references) and Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0341556 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2020/0006676 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Lee and Takahashi teach the device of claim 12, as discussed above.
However, neither Lee nor Takahashi teaches nor fairly suggests that the emitting layer further comprises a sensitizer.
With respect to the difference, Kwak discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer which has a host, dopant, and sensitizer (abstract).
Kwak teaches that when a sensitizer of Formulae 1 or 2 is used in combination with a host and dopant, the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light-emitting device may be improved because it has excellent characteristics in terms of exciton transfer to the dopant (paragraph 0339).
Kwak goes on to teach an example device (Table 1, page 292) which has an emission layer comprising 88% host, 10% sensitizer, and 2% dopant.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sensitizer of Kwak in a lesser amount than the host, but greater amount than the dopant in the emission layer of Lee in order to obtain an organic light-emitting device with improved lifespan and efficiency, as taught by Kwak.
With respect to claim 17, Lee, Takahashi, and Kwak teach the device of claim 16, and Lee also teaches that the compounds may emit light with a wavelength of 462 nm (paragraph 0097), which is within the range of blue color emission.
With respect to claim 18, Lee, Takahashi, and Kwak teach the device of claim 16, and Lee also teaches that the compound is a delayed fluorescent emitter (paragraph 0001).
With respect to claim 19, Lee, Takahashi, and Kwak teach the device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound of modified Lee to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it falls completely within the limitations of the instant independent claim. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Lee reads on the claims.
Lee is silent to the decay time of the compound above. 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 compound of Lee is used as an emitter in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Lee, 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 Lee was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 114656466 A, using the provided translation for references), and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 2021/0119032 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Wu discloses an indolocarbazole derivative such as the compound below.
PNG
media_image3.png
192
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Wu Formula (1) when X3 and X4 are joined to form a fused heterocyclic ring structure (paragraph 0009).
Wu also teaches that R1 may be a C12 fused-ring heteroaryl (paragraph 0007).
However, while Wu teaches that grafting of acceptor groups onto the periphery of the compound has the potential to turn the indolocarbazole derivative into a TADF material, Wu does not teach nor fairly suggest a location analogous to instant Rx or Ry.
In analogous art, Lee teaches an indolocarbazole derivative for use as a TADF material in an organic light-emitting device (paragraphs 0006 and 0019). The indolocarbazole comprises at least one substituent on the periphery of the indolocarbazole, and the possible locations include a position analogous to instant Rx or Ry. (paragraph 0011).
Lee teaches that the indolocarbazole compound has a rigid molecular structure and by further including a substituent, such as a carbazole functional group from Table 1 (formula 2-1, page 7 of the original document), the compound may have narrow emission spectrum, high internal quantum efficiency, and long lifespan characteristics (paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a 9-carbazole substituent on the compound of Wu at any location, including a location analogous to instant Rx or Ry, in order to give the compound narrow emission spectrum, high internal quantum efficiency, and long lifespan characteristics, as taught by Lee.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 11 when X11 and X12 are carbon atoms, Y11 to Y16 are carbon atoms, Z11 to Z16 are carbon atoms, W11 and W12 are carbon atoms, A11 is a benzene group, C11 to C14 are each benzene, Rx is represented by Formula 2-2 (the 9-carbazolyl group), Ry is a hydrogen atom, b11, b12, b13, and b14 are 0 and R11, R12, R13 and R14 are not present. In Formula 2-2, a22 is 0 and L22 is not present, b23 and b24 are 0 and R21 and R22 are absent, and X21 is a direct bond.
With respect to claim 3, Wu and Lee teach the compound of claim 1, and A11 is represented by Formula 3-1 when X11 through X16 are carbon atoms, X13 and X14 are W11 and W12 in Formula 11.
With respect to claim 4, Wu and Lee teach the compound of claim 1, and A11 is represented by instant Formula 3-11, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 8, Wu and Lee teach the compound of claim 1, and the compound is represented by Formula 11-1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Wu and Lee teach the compound of claim 8, and A11 is represented by instant Formula 3-11, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 10, Wu and Lee teach the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Lee also teaches an acceptable functional group is diphenylamine (formula 2-43, Table 1, page 7 of the original document).
Such a modification produces the instant first embodiment of the claim.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a diphenylamine substituent on the compound of Wu at any location, including a location analogous to instant Rx or Ry, in order to give the compound narrow emission spectrum, high internal quantum efficiency, and long lifespan characteristics, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claims 11, 12, and 13, Wu and Lee teach the compound of claim 1, and Wu also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (an anode, ITO), a second electrode (a cathode, Al), and an organic layer between the electrodes comprising an emission layer and the emission layer comprises the compound as an emitter which is doped at a concentration of 10 wt% in combination with mCP as the host material (paragraph 0131).
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 compound in the emission layer of a device with the claimed structure, as taught by Wu.
With respect to claim 14, Wu and Lee teach the device of claim 13, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound of modified Wu, discussed above, to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it falls entirely within the limitations of parent claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Wu in view of Lee reads on the claims.
Wu and Lee are silent to expected emissive wavelength of such a compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the indolocarbazole derivative is used as an emitter in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Wu and Lee, 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 Wu and Lee was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 15, Wu and Lee teach the device of claim 13, and Wu also teaches the compounds are TADF materials (paragraph 0030).
With respect to claim 20, Wu and Lee teach the device of claim 11, and Wu also teaches that the device may be used in an electronic apparatus such as a display device (paragraph 0002).
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 in a display apparatus, as taught by Wu.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0341556 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Takahashi teaches the compound below (page 57).
PNG
media_image4.png
498
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Takahashi Formula (3-11) (paragraph 024), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
538
584
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Takahashi also teaches that any of R1 to R7 and R10 to R16 are -N(R36)(R37) (paragraph 0153), and R17 may be a hydrogen atom (paragraph 0154).
Takahashi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Takahashi being a lack of the aforementioned unsubstituted benzene core and 9-carbazolyl positions being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible substituent and substituent location from the finite list of possible substituents, and arrive at a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which is a useful material for organic electroluminescent devices and which can enhance the luminous efficiency of the organic electroluminescent device when used as a fluorescent emitting dopant in the emitting layer of the device (paragraph 0535), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of instant Formula 12 when X11 and X12 are carbon atoms, Y11 to Y16 are carbon atoms, Z11 to Z16 are carbon atoms, W11 and W12 are carbon atoms, A11 is an unsubstituted benzene group, C11 to C14 are each benzene, Rx and Ry are represented by Formula 2-2, and b11, b12, b13, and b14 are 0 so that R11, R12, R13, and R14 are not present.
In Formula 2-2, a22 is 0 and L22 is not present, b23 and b24 are 0 so that R23 and R24 are not present, and X21 is a single bond.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights