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 specification includes blurry compound structures missing bonds including, but not limited to, structures such as H12, H14, H26, H27, H39, H47, H51, H69, H79, EH3, EH7, EH26, EH47, and EH52. Selected examples of problematic structures are shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
661
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On line [212], the specification includes a blurry reaction scheme shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
181
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 includes blurry compounds missing bonds and compounds that are resized unevenly making the substituents unclear. Compounds missing bonds include, but is not limited to, structures such as H14, H47, H63, H69, EH26, EH41, EH43, EH47, EH48, and EH51. Selected examples of problematic structures are shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
448
1021
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compounds where the substituents are unclear include, but not limited to, structures such as H28, H34, and H70. Selected examples of problematic structures are shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
152
565
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 also has compound numbers that refer to two different compounds including compounds EH85 to EH90 shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
560
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 2-3, 5-8, and 10-12 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 instant claim 2, the applicant recites the organic light emitting element of claim 1 wherein the compound is represented by chemical formula 2a; however, no chemical formula labeled as “2a” exists within claim 2. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Regarding instant claim 3, Applicant claims the following:
PNG
media_image6.png
230
840
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This language is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is
Requiring that only one of R4 to R12 connected to L1 can be a single bond and the remainder must be selected from the group consisting of a C1-C20 alkyl group….”
OR
b) Requiring that any number of R4 to R12 connected to L1 can be a single bond and, if all are single bonds, then the claim is met.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this clause in claim 3 to be interpreted as either a) or b).
Regarding instant claim 5 and 10, the applicant recites the organic light emitting element of claim 1 having a light-emitting layer wherein the light-emitting layer includes “the compound” with no further description. The use of the term “the compound” is unclear because it encompasses any compound, not just the compounds as claimed in claim 1, chemical formula 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As the claim has a clear typo and it reasonably would be a compound of chemical formula 1, the Examiner will interpret the claim as such. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claims 6 – 8 and claims 11 – 12 are also rejected as they depend from claims 5 and 10 respectively and do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites the following compounds according to the general structure following chemical formula 1 in claim 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
450
799
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compounds H14, H49, and H63 display a 1,3,5-hexatriene for either R1 or R2. In parent claim 1, R1 and R2 are selected from the group consisting of a C6-C60 aryl group; a fluorenyl group; and a C2-C60 heterocyclic group including at least one heteroatom of O, N, S, Si, and P. There is no language for R1 or R2 to be an open, unsaturated carbon chain.
Compounds EH41 and EH43 display a missing bond in the benzoxazole and benzothiazole structure, respectively, attached to the triazine. In parent claim 1, chemical formula 1 only allows for benzoxazoles and benzothiazoles attached to the triazine core.
Compound EH26 displays a missing bond between the benzoxazole and the claimed Ar group. In parent claim 1, the linker L1 is selected from the group consisting of a single bond; a fluorenylene group; and a C6-C60 arylene group. There is no language for L1 to be no bond. Thus, compounds H14, H49, H63, EH41, EH43, and EH26 are outside the scope of parent claim 1 by not properly further limiting claim 1.
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 § 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)(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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2021/0070717 A1 hereafter "Li").
Regarding instant claims 1-2, Li discloses a compound 166 featuring a triazine core attached to two fluorenyl groups and a benzoxazole (Li, column 376) with the following structure:
PNG
media_image8.png
615
746
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Compound 166 of Li is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 1a wherein R1 and R2 are each a fluorenyl group, Y is N and X is O, b is 0, a is 1, L1 is a single bond, and Ar is a C6 aryl group. Therefore, the compound 166 of Li meets claims 1-2.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2020/0035905 hereinafter "Lee"). Note that a machine-generated translation of Lee is provided with this office action.
Regarding instant claims 1-3, Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device with an organic material layer containing a compound featuring a triazine core attached to two phenyl groups, and a benzothiazole attached to a triphenylene unit via a meta-substituted phenylene (Lee, pg 45, col 3, row 4) with the following structure:
PNG
media_image9.png
593
772
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compound of Lee, above, is a compound of the claimed chemical formula 1 and chemical formula 1b wherein R1 and R2 are each a C6 aryl group, X is S, Y is N, b is 0, a is 1, L1 is a C6 aryl or “phenyl”, and Ar is triphenylene represented by chemical formula 2h. Therefore, the compound 318 meets claims 1-3. Note that claim 3 is interpreted as chemical formula 2h where R4 is the attachment point to L1 and R5 to R15 are single bonds thereby meeting the claim language.
Regarding instant claim 4, the compound of Lee anticipates the claimed compound of EH72.
Regarding instant claims 5-8, Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and one or more organic layers wherein at least one of the organic layers comprises a compound of claims 1-7 including the compound above (Lee, claim 8). Lee recites that at least one of the organic layers comprises the compound of Lee, above (Lee, Detailed Description of the Invention). Lee also teaches that the organic light-emitting device is composed of a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (Lee, Brief Description of the Drawing). Lee teaches that the host compound may be the compound of Lee or another compound where variations of combinations are summarized in Table 1 (Lee, Experimental Example). Therefore, the device of Lee meets claims 1-8.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0070717 A1).
Regarding instant claim 3, Li teaches compound 166 as applied to claim 1 above. Compound 166 follows the general formula VII, shown below, featuring a triazole core attached to phenyl groups and a benzoxazole where Ar3 is a single bond, Ar7 is H, and Ar6 is a phenyl group (Li, claim 4).
PNG
media_image10.png
899
1025
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In preferred embodiments, Li teaches that Ar6 may be specifically carbazolyl and dibenzofuranyl (Li, claim 2). 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 select carbazole or dibenzofuran (meeting instant claim 3 chemical formula 2a and 2b respectively) for Ar6 of formula VII of Li because it would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the organic dopant material in the emissive layer of the electroluminescent device and possessing the benefits taught by Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize for both luminance and efficiency as taught by Li. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E). The burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise unexpected results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0070717 A1) in view of Duan et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal 420 (2021) 127591 hereinafter "Duan").
Regarding instant claim 3, Li teaches compound 166 as applied to claim 1 above. Compound 166 follows the general formula VII featuring a triazole core attached to phenyl groups and a benzoxazole where Ar3 is a single bond, Ar7 is H, and Ar6 is a phenyl group (Li, claim 4). In preferred embodiments, Li teaches that Ar6 may be specifically carbazolyl and dibenzofuranyl (Li, claim 2). Li is silent on the identity of Ar6 being specifically the chemical formulas 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, and 2g claimed in instant claim 3.
Duan teaches in the analogous art of light-emitting organic devices containing thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) materials that the carbazole moiety may be substituted with analogous carbazole-based fused structures including the benzofuranyl-fused carbazole seen in the fragment of BFCZPZ1 (instant formula 2e) and the benzothiazoyl-fused carbazole seen in fragment of BTCZPZ1 (instant formula 2f) (Duan, see abstract, Fig. 1, and pg 2 col II). Duan teaches that, compared with carbazole, the new donor moieties of benzofuranyl-fused carbazole and benzothiazoyl-fused carbazole “possess larger molecular weight, stronger electron-donating ability and wider HOMO distributions, which can improve their thermal stability, TADF characters, and oscillator strengths, respectively.” Duan teaches that the planar and rigid fused carbazole donor groups can display a reduced full-width at half maximum values that improve their color purity.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected success at the time of invention in formulating a compound of instant claim 3 with Chemical Formula 2e and 2f through combining the teachings of Li with Duan. The skilled artisan would have selected a fused-carbazole structure of Duan for the carbazole of Li at position Ar6 in order to optimize for a compound with a higher efficiency, stability, and color purity as taught by Duan. The burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise unexpected results. Note that claim 3 is interpreted as chemical formula 2e and 2f attached to L1 where every site is a single bond to H, meeting the claim language.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020/0035905) in view of Spindler et al. (US 8,877,350 B2), hereinafter “Spindler”).
Regarding instant claims 9-12, Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and one or more organic layers wherein at least one of the organic layers comprises a compound of claims 1-7 including the compound above (Lee, claim 8). Lee recites that at least one of the organic layers comprises the compound of Lee (Lee, Detailed Description of the Invention). Lee fails to teach the organic light emitting device having an organic layer with multiple stacks containing a first and second light emitting layers.
Spindler teaches an organic light-emitting device including a substrate, an anode, a cathode, and multiple light emitting layers including a first and second light-emitting layers, with each light-emitting layer having at least one different material than the other layer (see abstract, col 2 ¶ [50] – [65]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Lee in view of Spindler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a compound of Lee in the light-emitting layers of the organic light-emitting device of Spindler. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that possess the benefits of the compounds of Lee with higher efficiency, longer lifespan, and lower operating voltage with the device of Spindler offering a white OLED device with improved color stability upon aging. See MPEP § 2143.1.(B).
Lee also teaches that the host compound may be the compound of Lee or another compound where variations of combinations are summarized in Table 1 (Lee, Experimental Example). Therefore, the compound of Lee in view of the device of Spindler meets claims 9-12.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,006,312 B2 (hereinafter ‘312). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of '312 recite compounds and a device that meet the limitations of claims 1-2 and 5-6 of instant application '581.
For example, claim 1 of ‘312 recites the compound below which reads on the limitations of claims 1-2 of instant application ‘581.
PNG
media_image11.png
502
808
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The compound of ‘312 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 (claim 1) and Chemical Formula 1a (claim 2) wherein:
R1 and R2 are each a C2-C60 heterocyclic group containing N and S
b is 0, and thus R3 is 0
a is 0, and thus L1 is a single bond
X is N and Y is S
Ar is a C6 aryl group
Additionally, claim 1 of ‘312 correspond to claims 5-6 of instant application ‘581. Claim 1 of ‘312 recites an organic electroluminescence device comprising an organic layer wherein the organic layer comprises a light-emission layer. Claim 1 of ‘312 recites an organic electroluminescence device comprising an organic layer wherein the organic layer comprises an electron transport layer which meets the limitation of instant claim 6 of “includes at least one of a hole injection, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the scope of the instant claims overlaps with the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,006,312 B2 and, thus, are obvious variants of each other.
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 12:00PM.
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