DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 as filed on 10/07/2022 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 sets forth chemical structures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 in two occurrences. The duplicate occurrence of each respective compound should be removed for the purpose of clarity. 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 1-21 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the “first compound” may have two structures of Formula 1 linked via “a direct or indirect bond”. It is unclear what is encompassed by the term “indirect bond” and it is not seen where the specification further clarifies the term. The intended structure of a first compound having an indirect bond is unclear. Clarification and/or correction are required.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2021-0046539 A (cited on I.D.S. and a translation copy is attached to this office communication) (hereinafter cited as KR ‘539).
KR ‘539 teaches organic light emitting diodes and devices including the diodes (see title). The devices include a first electrode, second electrode, and functional layers between the electrodes (see description of device beginning at middle of page 3 of translation copy). The emitting layer (EML) may comprise a delayed fluorescent material and a second compound that is a fluorescent material and may also include a third material (see fifth full paragraph on page 6 of translation copy). The delayed fluorescent material described as first compound in the EML is represented by Formula 1 (see bottom of page 6 of translation copy):
PNG
media_image1.png
238
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Definitions of R1 and R2 and integer n are provide at the bottom of page 6/20 of translation copy. See full definitions for Formula 1 compounds. More specifically, example compounds of KR ‘539 general Formula 1 include at least the following compound 1-1 (see top of page 7/20 of translation copy) and compound 1-9 (see middle of page 7/20 of translation copy), but are not limited to only these example compounds.
Compound “1-1” is within instant “first compound” formula 1 of claim 1 and is the same as instant “1-1” of dependent claim 6 :
PNG
media_image2.png
168
112
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Compound “1-9” is within instant “second compound” formula 3 of claim 1 and is the same as instant “2-2” of dependent claim 7:
PNG
media_image3.png
184
178
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
KR ‘539 teaches the fluorescent material of the EML is represented by Formula 3 (see bottom of page 7 of translation copy):
PNG
media_image4.png
184
226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
See full definitions for Formula 3.
More specifically, KR ‘539 Formula 3 compound may include at least example compound “2-2” (see top of page 8 of translation copy), which is within instant “third compound” of instant “Formula 5” of instant claim 1 and definitions set forth in dependent claim 8 and is identical to instant compound “3-1” recited in dependent claim 9:
PNG
media_image5.png
180
146
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to a device structure of instant independent claim 1, while KR ‘539 does not set forth an example device where two compounds of Formula 1 (such as both 1-1 and 1-9) were selected for use in combination together with a fluorescent dopant of Formula 3 such as compound 2-2 as discussed above, it would have been obvious to have used both compounds 1-1 and 1-9 in a light emitting layer as they are both of general Formula 1 and taught for the same purpose, because “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions taught by the prior art as useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose” (see In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980); In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971); In re Crockett, 126 USPQ 186, 188 (CCPA 1960)). One would expect to achieve a functional device having a light emitting layer including two compounds of formula 1 of KR ‘539 and a compound of Formula 3 of KR ‘539 with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success, because the compounds are disclosed by KR ‘539 as desirable for forming a light emitting layer of a device in order to obtain light from the device.
Regarding dependent instant claims 2-5, each of the claims is directed to property relationships among the respective recited first, second, and/or third compounds. As discussed above, KR ‘539 teaches compounds for a light emitting layer identical to first, second, and third compounds as claimed. For each of the respective same compounds, note that “’Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.’ A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” The property relationships among same compounds would be expected to flow from selection of same compounds for forming a layer. Further, the Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes. The burden of proof is on Applicants where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and the Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the device may have a single layer structure of a light emitting layer (see second full paragraph on page 5 of translation copy). Regarding dependent claim 11, KR ‘539 describes further adding a third compound, which reads upon addition of an instant “fourth compound” and KR ‘539 describes the required energy relationships of instant first and fourth compounds within the description of KR ‘539 first and third compounds (see sixth paragraph on page 9 of translation copy).
Regarding dependent claims 12 and 13, KR ‘539 sets forth a device structure may be formed to have a first EML and a second EML (light emitting layers) formed from light emitting layer materials discussed within the reference (see with description of Fig. 6 embodiment on page 12 of translation copy). Regarding claims 14-16, KR ‘539 sets forth a device structure may be formed to have a first EML, a second EML, and a third EML (light emitting layers) formed from light emitting layer materials discussed within the reference, which may be selected to obtain desired property relationships (see with description of Fig. 7 embodiment on page 13 of translation copy).
Regarding claim 17, a device structure may be formed to include a charge generation layer (CGL) between first and second emitting parts (see description of Fig. 8 embodiment on page 14 of translation copy). Regarding claims 18-20, emitting parts may be formed of discussed materials and may include a blue pixel region (see description of Fig. 8 starting at page 14 and Fig. 9 at page 15 of translation copy). Regarding claim 21, a device is formed upon a substrate (see Fig. 9 description on page 15 of translation copy).
Given the teachings of KR ‘539, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select materials of the reference as described above wherein the resultant materials, layers, and device structures would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of KR ‘539 with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
The office acknowledges the instant specification sets forth example embodiments; however, the examples are not fully commensurate in scope with the breadth of claimed compounds and combinations of claimed compounds in claimed device structures. Accordingly, the examples of the instant specification are not considered sufficient to overcome the current obviousness rejection over the currently pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wex, B., & Kaafarani, B. R. (2017). Perspective on carbazole-based organic compounds as emitters and hosts in TADF applications. Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 5(34), 8622-8653.
The non-patent literature reference discusses carbazolyl cyanobenzene derivatives for use in OLEDs (see at least Figure 1, page 8626), which are considered relevant to the instant application’s first and second compounds for use in a light emitting layer.
U.S. Patent No. 8,183,560
The patent reference teaches boron-, nitrogen-, and fluorine-containing derivatives for a light emitting device (see Chemical Formula 5 compounds starting at col. 9), which are considered relevant to instant third compound of Formula 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786