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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification is objected to for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the structures recited in each of claims 26, 27, and 28. See 37 C.F.R. 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, each of claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 24 recites a broad Markush group and these claim also recite preferable narrower Markush groups. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Applicants can overcome this rejection by removing all instances of “preferably” and “more preferably” from each of the above claims and to remove the narrower Markush groups. Should Applicants wish to claim such groups, they may do so in new dependent claims.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0301183) as evidenced by Ye et al. (CN-113121603).
Claims 1, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 27: Lee et al. teaches organic light-emitting devices. The devices are comprised of an anode, a hole transport region, an emission layer comprising a first host of chemical formula 1, a second host of chemical formula 2, and a third host of chemical formula 3, and a phosphorescent iridium dopant, an electron transport region, and a cathode. The exemplified dopant in all device examples of Lee et al. is the compound GD which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
118
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 605). This compound anticipates all of the structural limitations of Formula 1-1. As applied to Formula 1-1, compound GD has V equal to O, all Y1-Y4, U1-U4, W1-W4, and X3-X6 equal to CH, X1 equal to N, and X2 equal to C-CD3, and m equal to 2. While Lee et al. does not explicitly teach the EHOMO-A and ELUMO-A values recited in claim 1, it is submitted that the compound GD would inherently satisfy these values given the evidentiary teaching of Ye et al. Ye et al. teaches the same compound GD as above on page 47 (referred to as compound M11). On page 33 Ye et al. teaches that compound M11 (which is identical to GD) has a HOMO energy level of -5.50 eV (EHOMO-A) and a LUMO energy level of -2.92 eV (ELUMO-A). These values are lower than -5.19 eV and lower than -2.31, respectively as recited in claim 1. Therefore the exemplified dopant GD satisfies all of the structural and energy level requirements of Applicants claimed first compound.
Regarding the second compound of claim 1, Lee et al. teaches that compounds which include a triazine group are employed as the third host compound as taught therein. All of the exemplified compounds as well as all of the specific compounds taught in paragraph 0176 which refer to the third host compound satisfy Formula 2-1 of claim 1. While the third host as taught by Lee et al. satisfies all of the structural requirements of Formula 2-1 of claim 1, Lee et al. does not explicitly teach that the second compound has a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level (ELUMO-B) or less than or equal to -2.83 eV as required by claim 1. However, the overall teachings of Lee et al. render obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the inclusion of a third host material which does satisfy the EHOMO-B requirements of claim 1. Included in the specific compounds taught in paragraph 0176 are compounds which would satisfy the ELUMO-B requirements of claim 1. For example, on page 220 there is a compound which is identical to compound A-2 of claim 27, on page 214 there is a compound which is identical to compound A-19 of claim 27, on page 216, there is a compound which identical to compound A-20 of claim 27. There are sure to be many more compounds which satisfy the EHOMO-B requirements of the second compound as there are many compounds which are very close in structure to those recited above. Applicants specification teaches that the compounds of formula A-X on page 16 where X is equal to 2, 12-14, 18, 20-23, 25, 26, 28-34, 37, 43-45, 47, 49, 50, and 53-57 all satisfy Applicants claims ELUMO-B requirement of claim 1. There are many different structural differences in all of these structures and yet, all of these structures satisfy the ELUMO-B requirement of claim 1, suggesting that the compounds taught by Lee et al. which satisfies the ELUMO-B requirements of claim 1 would not necessarily be limited to only those mentioned above. Despite this, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have employed any of the explicitly taught compounds as the third host into the devices taught therein. This includes devices where compounds A-2, A-19, and A-20, which are compounds taught by Lee et al. Compound A-20 is taught in Applicants specification as having an ELUMO-B of -2.88 eV, thereby satisfying this limitation of claim 1. Compound A-20 also satisfies the structural limitation of Formula 2-2 of claim 20. As applied to Formula 2-2, compound A-20 has all Z variables equal to CH except where the rings are joined together, L1-L3 are all equal to a single bond, Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl, and Ar2 is a biphenyl-substituted dibenzofuran. This compound also satisfies all of the limitations of claims 21 and 24. As applied to Formula 2-3 of claim 21 the compound directly above has Z equal to O, all Z groups equal to CRx with one Rx being a deuterated phenyl group and all other Rx equal to hydrogen, L1-L3 are all equal to a single bond, Ar1 is equal to an unsubstituted phenyl, and A2 is equal to an unsubstituted carbazole, which also satisfies claims 22 and 24. This compound has an ELUMO-B of -2.89 eV as evidenced by Applicants specification. Such a device would therefore satisfy all of the structural limitations of both Formula 1-1 and Formula 1-2 of claim 1 as well as the EHOMO-A, ELUMO-A, and ELUMO-B values of claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, and 6: Compound A-2 which is the same as the third compound shown above and taught by Lee et al. has a ELUMO-B of -2.89 eV as taught in Applicants specification and compound GD has a EHOMO-A of -5.50 eV and a ELUMO-A of -2.92 eV which satisfies the limitations of claims 2, 3, and 6.
Claims 4 and 5: ELUMO-B – EHOMO-A is calculated to be (-2.89 eV) – (-5.50 eV), or -2.61 eV which is greater than -2.30 eV of claim 4 and ELUMO-A – ELUMO-B is calculated to be (-2.92 eV) – (-2.89 eV), or -0.03 eV, which satisfies the limitations of claims 4 and 5.
Claims 7 and 25: All of the device examples taught by Lee et al. include a second host material which is a carbazole-containing compound Formula 3-1 of claim 25 (chemical Formula 2 as taught in paragraph 0020 of Lee et al.), thereby satisfying claims 7 and 25.
Claim 8 and 28: The device examples of Lee et al. employ as the second host compounds, compounds 2-1, 2-2, 2-5, and 2-6. Compound 2-1 is the same as compound B-1 of claim 28; compound 2-2 is the same as compound B-20 of claim 28; compound 2-5 is the same as compound B-8 of claim 20; and compound 2-6 is the same as compound B-7 of claim 20. Embodiments where the dopant is compound GD, the second host material is one of compounds 2-1, 2-2, 2-5, and 2-6, and there the third host is one satisfying all of the structural and ELUMO-B requirements of claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since it would be understood that a device comprising any one of the explicitly taught second host materials and any one of the explicitly taught third host materials would be possible according to the teachings of Lee et al. The compounds 2-1, 2-2, 2-5, and 2-6 are shown to have EHOMO-C of greater than -5.48 eV, which satisfies the limitations of claim 8.
Claim 10: In compound GD, Rx and Ry are all hydrogen. There is no R group in compound GD and this group is not required in Formula 1-1, thereby satisfying claim 10.
Claim 11: In compound GD, Ru and Rw are all hydrogen, thereby satisfying claim 11.
Claim 13: In compound GD, variable V is O, thereby satisfying claim 13.
Claim 15: In compound GD, X2 is CRx where Rx satisfies Formula 1-2 with a equal to zero, A1 equal to a C1 alkylene, and Ra1 equal deuterium, thereby satisfying claim 15.
Claim 17: The CRx group for X2 in compound GD has Rz2 equal to deuterium. There is no Ra1 group as this is an optional group since a can be equal to zero in Formula 1-2, thereby satisfying claim 17.
Claim 29: The devices taught by Lee et al. are themselves electronic devices, thereby satisfying claim 29.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6, 9-24, 26, 27, and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 17/989,201 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 12 of the reference application is drawn to an organic electroluminescent device which employs an iridium dopant which satisfies all of the structural and HOMO and LUMO energy level requirements of the instant application as some of the specific dopants in claim 12 of the reference application are the same as those claimed in the instant application. Additionally, claim 12 requires a compound which satisfies all of the structural and LUMO energy level requirements of the instantly application as some of the specific compounds recited in claim 1 of the reference application are the same as those claimed in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, claims 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, and 26 are free of any prior art rejections. Lee et al. above does not teach or suggest an iridium dopant which satisfies the structural limitations of claims 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 26 and Lee et al. does not teach or suggest a third host material (which is the triazine-containing host material) which satisfies the structural requirements of claim 23. Related prior art teachings include Cai et al. (US 2020/0251666). Cai et al. teaches Applicants claimed first and third compounds, but not Applicants second compound. The only compound disclosed by Cai et al. which includes a triazine group is compound HB which is employed as an electron transporting/hole blocking host-however, Applicants own specification shows that this compound does not satisfy the (ELUMO-B) limitation of claim 1 as shown above. Gao et al. (US 2020/0203631) teaches Applicants first compound. It also teaches triazine based electron transporting host compounds. However, it cannot be said that such compounds would necessarily have an ELUMO-B value of less than -2.81 eV as required by claim 1. Li et al (US 2020/0277283) teaches Applicants first compound. It also teaches triazine based electron transporting host compounds. However, it cannot be said that such compounds would necessarily have an ELUMO-B value of less than -2.81 eV as required by claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766