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
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 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zink et al. (US 2020/0259097) in view of Liang et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 11316-11320).
Zink et al. teaches organic molecules and their employment in organic electroluminescent devices. The devices are taught to be comprised of a substrate, an anode (a first electrode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer comprising a host and a boron-based TADF dopant, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (a second electrode). In device examples D1 and D4-D7, the electron blocking layer comprises compound MAT3, which has the structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
192
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 19). This compound satisfies all of the structural limitations of Formula H-a of claim 14. As applied to Formula H-a, compound MAT3 above has L1 and L2 equal to p-phenylene, Ya and Yb equal to O, na-nd equal to zero, and Ara equal to an unsubstituted C18 aryl group (specifically a terphenyl group). This compound is present in the electron blocking layer which is part of the hole transport region, thereby satisfying claim 14.
While the boron-based dopants taught and exemplified by Zink et al. do not satisfy all of the structural limitations of the boron-based compound of Formula 1 of claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have employed such a dopant which does satisfy all of the limitations of Formula 1 in the devices taught by Zink et al. given the teachings of Liang et al. Zink et al. and Liang et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Liang et al. teaches that the introduction of a carbazole unit in the para position of the B-substituted phenyl-ring can significantly increase the resonance effect without compromising the color fidelity, thereby enhancing the performances of the corresponding blue TADF-OLEDs, which have outstanding external quantum efficiencies (EQE) of up to 32.1%, and low efficiency roll-off (abstract of Liang et al.). With this teaching, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce a carbazole group at the same position in the boron-based dopants taught by Zink et al. for the reasons taught above by Liang et al. This includes modifying any one of the explicitly taught compounds of Zink et al. Zink et al. teaches the compound
PNG
media_image2.png
190
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 16), with this compound also being employed in device example D6. Employing a carbazole-modified analog of this compound in the manner taught by Liang et al. affords the compound
PNG
media_image3.png
228
244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. This compound satisfies Formula 1 as recited in claim 14 (including Formula 6-1 of claim 19), Formula 2-1 of claim 15, Formula 3-1 of claim 16, Formula 4-1 of claim 17, and Formulae 5-1 of claim 18. As applied to Formula 1, the above compound has X1 and Z2 equal to NRa, with both Ra equal to a 3,5-(di-t-butyl)phenyl group, n1 through n5 equal to zero, Y1 and Y2 both equal to O, and n6-n9 equal to zero. The variable assignments described above apply to Formula 2-1 of claim 15, Formula 3-1 of claim 16, Formula 4-1 of claim 17, and Formulae 5-1 and 5-3 of claim 18. The 3,5-(di-t-butyl)phenyl groups for Ra satisfies Formula 6-1 of claim 19 with m1 equal to 2, and Rc1 equal to t-butyl.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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. Zink et al. represents the closest prior art regarding the subject matter of independent claim 14. The compounds taught by Zink et al. and also rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Zink et al. and Liang et al. are mutually exclusive from those specific compounds recited in claim 20.
Claims 1-13 are allowed. Independent claim 1 is drawn to a light-emitting device comprising a compound of Formula 1, and at least one of a second compound represented by Formula H-1, a third compound represented by Formula H-2, or a fourth compound represented by Formula D-2. The teachings of Zink et al. above do not teach or suggest an emission layer comprising at least one of the second, third, and fourth compounds recited in claim 1. In the devices taught by Zink et al., the emission layer comprises an anthracene-based hydrocarbon host material which does not read on any of the second, third, or fourth compounds as claimed. There is no teaching or suggestion to modify the host material taught by Zink et al.
A closely related prior art teaching is Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0158096). Fleetham et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices where the emission layer comprises a first host material satisfying formula H-1, a second host material satisfying Formula H-2, a phosphorescent dopant satisfying formula D-2, and a boron-based dopant. The function of the boron-based dopant as taught by Fleetham et al. is to act as a sensitizer which is capable of harvesting unwanted triplet excitons into useful excitons that feed the Pt-based phosphorescent emitter. The combination of the two host materials and boron-based sensitizer improves charge balance, enhances exciton harvesting, and facilitates energy transfer. The device examples taught by Fleetham et al. include those which satisfy all of the device and structural limitations of independent claim 1 with the notable exception of Formula 1. The boron-based sensitizers taught by Fleetham et al. are mutually exclusive from the boron-based compounds of Formula 1 as recited in claim 1. Given the teachings of Fleetham et al., one having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious or have been motivated to employ a compound satisfying Formula 1 of claim 1 to serve as the boron-based sensitizers taught by Fleetham et al.
A related prior art teaching Kwon et al. (KR-20220098515). Kwon et al. has a publication date after Applicants (unperfected) foreign priority date but before Applicants filing date. Kwon et al. teaches compounds such as T-9 and T-10 which satisfy all of the limitations of Formula 1 of claim 1 with the exception that both X1 and X2 in the compounds taught by Kwon et al. are required to be O and the instant claims requires at least one of X1 and X2 to be NRa.
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