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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 and 6-14 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 5 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the compounds of claim 4 are blurry. 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 and 11-12 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.
Claims 2-3 include Formulas 2 to 9 which include such small and blurry variables that it is unclear what the variables represent. The instant specification does not include clearer structures of Formulas 2 to 9. For purposes of examination, the blurry variables will be interpreted as any group.
Claim 11 recites the organic material layer comprises 2 or more stacks including a hole transport layer, an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer. It is unclear if each stack must include a hole transport layer, an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer, or if only one hole transport layer, one emitting layer, and one electron transport layer is required to be present within the 2 or more stacks. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as only one hole transport layer, one emitting layer, and one electron transport layer is required to be present within the 2 or more stacks.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the 2 or more stacks" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuki (English translation of WO 2016009823 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1-3, Matsuki teaches a light emitting element having improved luminous efficiency and life durability by including a monoamine derivative represented by general formula (1) wherein examples thereof include compound 119 (¶ [0006]-[0008] and [0078]; structure on pg. 18).
1:
PNG
media_image1.png
131
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
119:
PNG
media_image2.png
286
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 119 is 66% deuterated and reads on the claimed Formulas 1, 2, and 5 (claims 1-3) wherein:
R1 and R1 are each a C1 alkyl group;
R3 is a C6 aryl group and R4 is hydrogen;
L1 to L3 are each a single bond;
a is 1 and b is 3; and
Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C12 aryl group.
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 6-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (English translation of WO 2016009823 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9-12, Matsuki teaches compound 119 as described above with respect to claim 1.
Matsuki fails to teach an example of a device specifically including compound 119. However, Matsuki does teach a light emitting element having the configuration of anode/hole injection layer/hole transport layer/light-emitting layer/electron transport layer/electron injection layer/charge generating layer/hole injection layer/hole transport layer/light-emitting layer/electron transport layer/cathode, wherein the monoamine derivative represented by general formula (1) is preferably used in the hole transport layer (¶ [0081]).
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 use compound 119 in a hole transport layer of the device described above in ¶ [0081] of Matsuki, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Matsuki according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with having improved luminous efficiency and life durability, as taught by Matsuki. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per claim 10, the hole injection layer improves the luminous efficiency of the device, and thus may be considered a light efficiency enhancing layer (see Matsuki, ¶ [0089]).
Per claim 11, each stack includes hole transport layer/light-emitting layer/electron transport layer.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (English translation of WO 2016009823 A obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pflumm (US 2016/0190447 A1) and Fennimore (US 2017/0200893 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuki teaches compound 119 as described above with respect to claim 1.
general formula (1):
PNG
media_image3.png
119
159
media_image3.png
Greyscale
119:
PNG
media_image2.png
286
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 119 fails to include an unsubstituted fluorene group. However, in general formula (1), Matsuki teaches A1 may be a substituted or unsubstituted fluorenyl group (¶ [0014]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Matsuki, 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 the substituted fluorenyl group with an unsubstituted fluorenyl group, because Matsuki teaches A1 may suitably be selected as unsubstituted fluorenyl. 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 the modified compound would be useful in the device of Matsuki and possess the benefits taught by Matsuki. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 119 fails to include a spirobifluorene group. However, in general formula (1), Matsuki teaches A2 may be a substituted or unsubstituted fluorenyl group (¶ [0014]).
Pflumm teaches compounds represented by formula (1) for use in organic electroluminescent devices, wherein the compounds provide devices with improved lifetime, efficiency, and operating voltage (¶ [0005]-[0006]). Examples of compounds represented by formula (1) include compound 4 (pg. 15).
formula (1):
PNG
media_image4.png
132
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4:
PNG
media_image5.png
238
212
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in compound 119, 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 one of the biphenyl groups with spirobifluorene, as shown in Pflumm’s compound 4, to arrive at a compound of Pflumm’s formula (1) based on the teaching of Pflumm. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved lifetime, efficiency, and operating voltage, as taught by Pflumm.
The modified compound 119 fails to read on a claimed compound as it does not comprise six deuterium atoms on the fluorenyl group, seven deuterium atoms on the biphenyl group, and twelve deuterium atoms on the spirobifluorene group. However, as shown in general formula (1), Matsuki teaches substituents of the compound may be hydrogen or deuterium (¶ [0035] and [0041]-[0042]).
Fennimore teaches deuterated materials can be less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime compared to their non-deuterated analogs (¶ [0098]). Fennimore teaches deuterated materials may be 10-100% deuterated (¶ [0097]).
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 substitute deuterium atoms on the modified compound 119 such that it is 10-100% deuterated, based on the teaching of Fennimore. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound that is less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, has greater processing tolerance, and can improve device lifetime, as taught by Fennimore.
Particularly, 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 six deuterium atoms on the fluorenyl group, seven deuterium atoms on the biphenyl group, and twelve deuterium atoms on the spirobifluorene group to arrive at the structure of the claimed compound P-8, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable positions in which to substitute deuterium, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the device of Matsuki in view of Pflumm and Fennimore and possessing the benefits taught by Matsuki, Pflumm, and Fennimore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Matsuki’s general formula (1) having the benefits taught by Matsuki, Pflumm, and Fennimore in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound 119 reads on Matsuki’s general formula (1) wherein: L1 and L2 are each a single bond; A1 and A2 are each a substituted fluorenyl group, wherein substituents of A2 combine to form a ring; R1, R2, R4, and R5 are each deuterium and R3 is a substituted phenyl group (see Matsuki, ¶ [0010]). Accordingly, the modified compound 119 is expected to obtain the benefits of Matsuki.
The modified compound 119 reads on formula (1) of Pflumm wherein: Ar is not required to be present; Ar1 is an aromatic ring system having 12 C atoms and Ar2 is an aromatic ring system having 13 C atoms; R is D; n is 3 or 4, m is 2, and p is 0 (see Pflumm, ¶ [0006]-[0015]). Accordingly, the modified compound 119 is expected to obtain the benefits of Pflumm.
The modified compound 119 reads on the claimed compound P-8.
modified 119:
PNG
media_image6.png
337
277
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (English translation of WO 2016009823 A obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0294587 A1).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 11-12, Matsuki teaches compound 119 as described above with respect to claim 1.
119:
PNG
media_image2.png
286
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsuki fails to teach a device including an emitting auxiliary layer wherein the emitting auxiliary layer comprises compound 119. However, Matsuki teaches the monoamine derivate represented by general formula (1) has improved luminous efficiency and durability (¶ [0025]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, charge generation layers between two adjacent emission units, and a second electrode, wherein at least one of the emission units further includes a hole transporting (HT)-emission auxiliary layer including at least one second compound represented by Formula 2 (abstract). Such a device obtains low driving voltage, high luminescent efficiency, and long lifespan (¶ [0183]).
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image7.png
75
270
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 119 reads on Kim’s Formula 2 wherein: a11 to a13 are each 1; L11 and L12 are each a substituted C6 arylene group, and L13 is an unsubstituted C13 arylene group; and R11 to R13 are each a substituted C6 arylene group; and b11 to b13 are each 1 (see Kim, ¶ [0007]).
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 use compound 119 in the HT-emission auxiliary layer of Kim’s device, based on the teaching of Matsuki and Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a compound with improved luminous efficiency and durability, as taught by Matsuki, and to provide a device with low driving voltage, high luminescent efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Kim.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (English translation of WO 2016009823 A obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhen (US 2010/0117946 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Matsuki teaches the device including compound 119 as described above with respect to claim 6.
Matsuki fails to teach an electronic device comprising the device and a control unit.
Zhen teaches a brightness adjustable electrical apparatus comprising a lighting module and a control unit, wherein the control unit controls the brightness of the apparatus (abstract). The lighting module may be an organic light emitting diode (¶ [0006] and [0018]).
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 use the Matsuki’s device including compound 119 as the light module in the brightness adjustable electrical apparatus of Zhen, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Matsuki and Zhen according to known methods to yield predictable results of a brightness adjustable electrical apparatus with improved luminous efficiency and life durability, as taught by Matsuki. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki (English translation of WO 2016009823 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Kim (US 2017/0294587 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhen (US 2010/0117946 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Matsuki in view of Kim teach the device including compound 119 as described above with respect to claim 6.
Matsuki fails to teach an electronic device comprising the device and a control unit.
Zhen teaches a brightness adjustable electrical apparatus comprising a lighting module and a control unit, wherein the control unit controls the brightness of the apparatus (abstract). The lighting module may be an organic light emitting diode (¶ [0006] and [0018]).
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 use the device of Matsuki in view of Kim including compound 119 as the light module in the brightness adjustable electrical apparatus of Zhen, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Matsuki, Kim, and Zhen according to known methods to yield predictable results of a brightness adjustable electrical apparatus with improved luminous efficiency and life durability, as taught by Matsuki. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786