DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0160442, filed on 11/19/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2022 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 10/28/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20, 22 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 1, the claim contains reference to R36, R37, and R38 on page 84 of the claims. In these variables, the numbers should be superscript.
With respect to claims 20, 22, and 23, the word “is” should be “are” because the verb is referring to a plural quantity (two).
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 12 and 13 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 claim 12, the layer order claimed is ambiguous. It is not clear what order of layers Applicant is attempting to claim.
Applicant states that the third emitting layer is “disposed oppositely to the second emitting material layer with respect to the first emitting layer”.
This could be interpreted as the third emitting layer being on the opposite side of the second layer from the first layer (i.e., first, second, third layer order).
This could also be interpreted as the second layer being on the opposite side of the first layer from the third layer (i.e., second, first, third layer order).
In continuing examination, the layer order will be interpreted as encompassing either of these interpretations.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 4, the claim contains embodiments of the first compound which do not conform to the proviso that “two to four of R1 to R9 are a moiety having the…structure of Formula 2”.
These structures include compounds 1-6 and 1-15.
With respect to claim 6, the claim contains embodiments of the second compound which do not conform to the definitions of variable R36 because they include an arylamino group.
These structures include compounds 2-9, 2-14, 2-20, 2-28, 2-32, 2-34, 2-35, and 2-36.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11, 17, 19-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0315776 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hatakeyama discloses an organic light emitting diode (an organic EL element comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a negative electrode/cathode), an emissive layer between the electrodes comprising at least one emitting material layer (paragraph 0445), wherein the emitting layer comprises a first compound of general formula (1) (paragraph 0022), and a second compound of general formula (5) (paragraph 0061).
The first compound of general formula (1) is analogous to the instant second compound of formula (7), and the second compound of general formula (5) is analogous to the instant first compound of Formula (1).
Hatakeyama gives an example of the first compound (instant second compound), which includes the compound (1-1A-Cz4) (paragraph 0118), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula (7) when R36 is a C12 heteroaromatic group, and R32 and R33 form a substituted fused ring having boron and nitrogen. All other R characters are hydrogen atoms or not present.
Hatakeyama also gives an example of the second compound (instant first compound), which includes the compound (5-221) (page 258), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
326
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Hatakeyama general formula (5) (paragraph 0172), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, while Hatakeyama teaches that R1 and R3 can be any heteroaryl group (paragraph 0174), Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest that the carbazolyl groups are condensed with a structure of instant Formula 3.
In analogous art, Park teaches an organic light-emitting device and a heterocyclic compound of Formula 1 (abstract), and the emission layer comprises the heterocyclic compound (paragraph 0082). The compound of Formula 1 of Park is analogous to the second compound of Hatakeyama (instant first compound), in both structure and possible substituents.
Park gives an example of the heterocyclic compound of Formula 1 (paragraph 0073), which is compound 2, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
484
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Formula 1, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
296
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In this structure, variable D is represented by the indolocarbazole moiety above.
Park also teaches that c4 is 2 and c1 and c2 are each 0 (paragraph 0061).
Park includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Park being a lack of a compound wherein c4 is 2 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 incorporate two indolocarbazole groups and arrive a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which exhibits delayed fluorescence due to internal energy transfer and exhibits excellent luminescent material characteristics such as narrow full width at half maximum, high efficiency, high emission luminance, short emission wavelength, and short exciton lifespan, all of which result in a device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan (paragraphs 0074-0075), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two to four indolocarbazole substituents on the compound of Hatakeyama in order to obtain a compound which exhibits delayed fluorescence due to internal energy transfer and exhibits excellent luminescent material characteristics such as narrow full width at half maximum, high efficiency, high emission luminance, short emission wavelength, and short exciton lifespan, all of which result in a device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan, as taught by Park.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when R4 and R6 are represented by Formula 2, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms. In Formula 2, R11 and R12 form a substituted heteroaromatic ring having the structure of Formula 3, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms. In Formula 3, X is NR25, R25 is a C6 aromatic group (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, and together with Formula 2, form an indolocarbazole moiety.
With respect to claim 2, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and the first compound is represented by Formula 4 when R4 and R6 are represented by Formula 2, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 3, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and the moiety represented by Formula 2 is the instant fifth embodiment, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
100
152
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and the first compound is identical to instant compound 1-3.
With respect to claim 5, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and the second compound comprises an organic compound having the structure of instant Formula 8B when R36 and R43 are a C12 heteroaryl group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and the second compound is identical to instant compound 2-21.
With respect to claim 7, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama teaches that the emitting layer is a single layer (paragraph 0144 and Figured 1).
With respect to claim 8, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 7, and Hatakeyama teaches that the emitting layer may further comprise a third compound (a host compound) (paragraph 0162).
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 host compound in the emitting layer of Hatakeyama and Park, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 9, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 8, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the first component (instant second compound) is present in a content of 0.0001% by weight to 2.0% by weight, the second component (instant first compound) is present in a content of 0.0999% by weight to 8.0% by weight, and the third compound (the host material) is present in a content of 90.0 % by weight to 99.9 % by weight with respect to the total weight of the light emitting layer-forming composition.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the concentration of the instant second compound overlaps with the prior art, and the concentrations of the instant first and third compounds in the prior art are very close to the instantly claimed concentrations. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
However, for the sake of discussion, Park teaches doping of the indolocarbazole compound (instant first compound) in an amount of 20% in a host (third compound) of 80% (paragraph 0378).
It is Examiner’s position that the differences in concentrations between the instantly claimed invention and the prior art do not support patentability of the claimed subject matter because there is no evidence that the concentrations are critical. Further, given that Hatakeyama and Park teach different concentrations of the same component, it would have been a matter of routine optimization to determine which concentrations of the instant first compound and host compound achieve the most favorable results and arrive at a concentration which overlaps with the instantly claimed range (MPEP 2144.05, II).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the light emitting layer may be formed of a plurality of layers, each comprising a host and dopant (paragraph 0162), wherein the first compound (instant second compound) is a dopant and the second compound (instant first compound) is a host compound (see Table 5, page 319). Hatakeyama also teaches the emitting layer may comprise a assist dopant material (paragraph 0166).
In this respect, Hatakeyama teaches a plurality of emitting layers, each comprising a first compound, a second compound, and a third/fourth compound.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emitting layer of Hatakeyama and Park as the emitting layers in the device of Hatakeyama, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 17, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches an organic light emitting device (organic EL element) comprising a substrate, and the diode of claim 1 is disposed on the substrate (paragraphs 0591-0593).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the organic EL element of Hatakeyama and Park on a substrate, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 19, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Given the general formula and teachings of Park, 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 the compound of Hatakeyama and Park in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the emissive layer of the electroluminescent device of Hatakeyama and possess the properties taught by Park. 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 positional isomer meets the requirements of the instant claim when R4 to R6 are hydrogen atoms.
With respect to claim 20, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, and R4 and R6 are each represented by Formula 2, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hatakeyama compound 1-1A-Cz4 is derived from Hatakeyama formula (2), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
324
478
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama also teaches that R6 and R11 may be a heteroaryl group (paragraph 0037), such as carbazolyl (paragraph 0102, line 12).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claims.
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with shortened emission wavelength and reduced intermolecular stacking which increases the element efficiency (paragraph 0082), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0315776 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claims 12, 14, and 16, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 10, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama nor Park teach that the light emitting layer specifically comprises a third emitting layer.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a tandem organic light emitting diode with three emitting parts (abstract, Figure 2 and paragraph 0095), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
794
672
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Shin teaches the third emitting layer (ST3) is disposed oppositely to the second emitting layer (ST2) with respect to the first emitting layer (ST1) and there is a first charge generation layer (CGL1) between the first and second emitting layers, and a second charge generation layer (CGL2) between the second and third emitting layers.
Shin teaches that a tandem LED with a charge generation layer between each emitting unit smoothly distributes charges to each emitting layer, resulting in an LED with relatively long lifetime (paragraphs 0006-0007).
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 at least one emitting layer of Hatakeyama and Park in any of the emitting layers of the tandem device of Shin in order to obtain a device wherein charge generation is charge is distributed smoothly to each emitting layer, resulting in a device with relatively long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 13, Hatakeyama, Park, and Shin teach the diode of claim 12, and as discussed above, 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 emitting layer composition of Hatakeyama and Park in any of the light emitting layers of the device of Shin, wherein the compound of instant Formula 7 is the fifth compound, and the compound of instant Formula 1 is the sixth compound.
With respect to claim 15, Hatakeyama, Park, and Shin teach the diode of claim 14, and Shin teaches that the first emitting part includes the at least one emitting layer, as discussed above, and the second emitting part may emit green light (paragraph 0007).
With respect to claim 18, Hatakeyama and Park teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, while Hatakeyama also teaches an organic light emitting display device (paragraph 0458), substrate (paragraph 0450), and a display comprising an array of pixels (paragraphs 0455-0456), neither Hatakeyama nor Park teach that each pixel comprises one or more individual organic light emitting diodes.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a tandem organic light emitting diode with three emitting parts (abstract, Figure 2 and paragraph 0095).
Shin teaches that an OLED display device includes a substrate, a light emitting diode, and a driving thin film transistor (paragraph 0122), and each thin film transistor may define a pixel region (paragraph 0123).
While Shin does not teach a specific motivation for this configuration, Shin is effective in demonstrating that a display device of this structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an organic light emitting device on a substrate comprising an array of pixels, wherein each pixel contains an individual light emitting diode, as taught by Shin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to claim 21, the claim requires the light emitting diode of claim 1, wherein the compound of Formula 7 does not comprise a fused ring structure formed by two adjacent of R31 to R38.
A search of the prior art did not identify the claimed invention.
The closes identified prior art is Hatakeyama et al (US 2020/0190115 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Hatakeyama an emission layer composition comprising two heteropolycyclic boron-containing compounds. The first compound of general formula (1) is analogous to the instant second compound of Formula 7.
Claim 21 of the instant application differs from the work of Hatakeyama because general formula (1) of Hatakeyama requires that two adjacent of instant R31 through R38 are joined to form a fused ring having boron and nitrogen, while claim 21 excludes this possibility.
Additionally, there existed no teaching nor motivation to make such a modification in the broader prior art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al. (US 2022/0020929 A1) – teaches a relevant composition
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786