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 § 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)(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.
Claims 16-21, 23, 25-29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xia (US 2019/0211038, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 11/15/22).
Claim 16: Compounds 601 and 602 of Xia, which have the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
154
106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
158
104
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 84), anticipate Formula 1 of claim 16. As applied to Formula 1, these compounds have all eight Ra groups and all three R2 groups equal to hydrogen atoms, and R1 is equal to a C12 polycyclic aryl group (o- or m-biphenyl, respectively).
Claims 17 and 18: Since all of R2 and Rb in each of Formulae 1a through 1d may be equal to hydrogen atoms as claimed, compounds 601 and 602 also anticipate each of Formula 1a-1d of claim 17 as well as Formula Ia of claim 18 with both Rb groups equal to hydrogen atoms and all three R2 groups equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 19: Both Rb groups in compounds 601 and 602 as applied to Formulae 1a-1d of claim 17 are equal to hydrogen atoms, which also anticipates claim 19.
Claims 20 and 21: All Ra groups in compounds 601 and 602 are equal to hydrogen atoms, which anticipates claim 20 and all Rb groups in compounds 601 and 602 are hydrogen atoms, which anticipates claim 21.
Claim 23: All R2 groups in compounds 601 and 602 are hydrogen atoms, which anticipates claim 23.
Claims 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 32: The compounds taught by Xia, which includes compounds 601 and 602, are employed as dopants (luminescent emitters) in organic light-emitting diodes (paragraphs 0084-0108). The employment of any one of the explicitly taught compounds of Xia in such devices, including compounds 601 and 602, is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claims 25 and 26. Further, Xia teaches that the organic light-emitting diode includes an anode, a hole injection region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a cathode (paragraphs 0084-0108), which anticipates the limitations of claims 29, 31, and 32.
Claim 27: Claim 11 of Xia is drawn to an organic light-emitting device where the emission layer comprises one of the boron-based dopants taught therein and a host material. Such an embodiment with either of compounds 601 and 602 anticipates the limitations of claims 27.
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 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2019/0211038) as applied to claims 16 and 27, respectively, in view of Yam et al. (US 2020/0176691).
Xia teaches the limitations of claims 16 and 27, as described above. While Xia does not explicitly teach how to prepare the organic light-emitting devices taught therein, more specifically, how to deposit the light-emitting layer, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have prepared said light-emitting layer using a solution method or via a vacuum evaporation method as required by claims 30 and 33 given the teachings of Yam et al. Yam et al. represents one of many hundreds (or perhaps more) of references which teaches that the preferred method for preparing the various layers in an OLED, including the emission layer, is via a vacuum deposition method or a solution processing method (paragraph 0138 of Yam et al.). Xia and Yam et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have prepared the emission layer via a solution method or via a vacuum evaporation method as taught by Yam et al. and would have been motivated to do so as these are preferred methods in preparing the various layers for OLEDs. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art understands that deposition via solution and vacuum evaporation methods are the tried and true methods for OLED device preparation. For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have employed a deposition method satisfying claims 30 and 33 using compounds 601 and 602.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 24 are 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. Claims 22 and 24 are drawn to embodiments where the organic molecule represented by Formula 1 has R1 equal to a pyrene group, which may be unsubstituted or substituted with the groups recited in claims 22 and 24. Xia does not teach or fairly suggest compounds where R1 is pyrene or comprises pyrene. General Formula 1 of Xia as described in paragraphs 0019-0022 does not include embodiments where an R1 group is present which is, or which comprises, pyrene. This Office action does not cite any references in a PTO-892 form. The closest prior art has already been submitted by Applicants. The prior art searches conducted by the Examiner did not reveal any additional relevant prior art teachings.
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