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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on each of 12/05/2022, 12/06/2022, 06/30/025, and 08/22/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments of 12/05/2022 and 11/14/2025 are entered.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 are amended due to the applicant's amendment of 12/05/2022.
Claim 19 is new due to the applicant's amendment of 11/14/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least Formula (I) and wherein the molecular dipole moment of the compound of formula (I) is ≥ 0 D and ≤ 4 D should be recited in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, it is suggested that the preamble of the claim be amended to read "An organic
in claims 2-10, 13-16, it is suggested that the preamble of the claim be amended to read "The organic
in claims 11-12, it is suggested that the preamble of the claim be amended to read "The organic
in claims 17-18, it is suggested that the preamble of the claim be amended to read "A device
in claims 1-2, 6, , it is suggested all of the dashes "-" be removed, for ease of reading;
in claim 1, on line 5 of page 4 it is suggested that "formula (I)" be replaced with "Formula (I)" for consistency;
in claim 2, on line 4, "tetraphenylsilylor a group having the formula (IIa)" should read "tetraphenylsilyl or a group having the formula (IIa)";
in claim 8, it is suggested that the stray horizontal lines be deleted;
claim 9 appears to lack a period;
in claim 11, it is suggested that "t0" be replaced with "to" to correct the spelling error; and
in claim 19 it is suggested that the claim be changed to read "A compound.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites Formula (I): (Ar1-Ac)-Xb. The claim further recites Formula (II): (Ar2)m-(Zk-G)n. It is unclear what is meant by Xb, Ac, and Zk. Are the variables b, c, and k meant to be subscripts identifying the variables or each and index indicating the number present? Could Xb be written as (X)b, Ac as (A)c and Zk as (Z)k?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that Formula (I) is defined as (Ar1-(A)c)-(X)b and Formula (II) is defined as (Ar2)m-((Z)k-G)n.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what items are in the alternative.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the charge generation layer comprises a metal, an alkali metal, a metal salt, an alkaline earth metal salt, a rare earth metal salt, an organic alkali metal complex, an alkali metal complex, LiF, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiQ, a metal borate, or mixtures thereof.
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.
(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 1-8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganier et al. EP-3208861-A1 (hereinafter "Ganier").
It is noted that Ganier et al. EP-3208861-A1 is cited on the IDS of 12/05/2022.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10-18, Ganier discloses a tandem OLED comprising: an anode electrode, a first emission layer (EML), an n-type charge generation layer (n-type CGL), a p-type charge generation layer (p-type GCL), a second emission layer (EML), a first cathode electrode layer and a second cathode electrode layer (¶ [0319]). The n-type CGL and the p-type GCL correspond to the claimed first charge generation layer and the first cathode electrode layer and the second cathode electrode layer correspond to the claimed cathode. Ganier discloses the first electron transport layer comprises a first organic aromatic matrix compound and the second electron transport layer comprises the first organic aromatic matrix compound and a polar organic aromatic phosphine compound (¶ [0006]). Ganier discloses wherein the first organic aromatic matrix compound has the formula (5) (¶ [0133]), or formula (400) (¶ [0146]) and is selected from compounds ETM1-1 to ETM1-37 in Table 1 (¶ [0151], Table 1). Ganier discloses wherein the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound has the Formula 1a (¶ [0168]) and is selected from compounds A1 to A27 (¶ [0187]). Ganier teaches wherein the n-type charge generation layer can be composed of metal or organic material doped with n-type, wherein the metal can be one selected from a group consisting of Li (¶ [0265]). Ganier discloses a display or lighting panel comprising the organic light-emitting diode (¶ [0371]). Additionally, Ganier teaches the device has the beneficial properties of very low operating voltages and/or high external quantum efficiency EQE and/or very long lifetime (¶ [0071]).
Ganier discloses in Example 1-3 wherein the first electron transport layer is formed of the first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1, ETM1-32, and ETM1-15, respectively (¶ [0324] and TABLE 7) and the second electron transport layer is formed of the first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1, ETM1-32, and ETM1-15, respectively and the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound A18 (¶ [0325] and TABLE 7).
Ganier discloses first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1 having a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
140
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(TABLE 1), which is a compound of the claimed Formula (I) wherein:
a and b are each 1;
c is 1;
Ar1 is C14 aryl substituted with C6 aryl group (an anthracenyl group substituted with a phenyl group);
A is a C6 aryl (a phenylene group); and
X is C10 aryl (a naphthyl group).
Ganier discloses the first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1 having a dipole moment of between 0 and 2.5 Debye, which falls within the claimed range of 0 to 4 Debye.
Ganier discloses first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-32 having a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
171
276
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(TABLE 1, page 28), which is a compound of the claimed Formula (I) wherein:
a and b are each 1;
c is 2;
Ar1 is C14 aryl substituted with C6 aryl group (a phenyl group substituted with phenyl groups);
A is a C6 aryl (a phenylene group); and
X is C10 aryl (a triazinyl group substituted with phenyl groups).
Ganier discloses the first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1 having a dipole moment of between 0 and 2.5 Debye, which falls within the claimed range of 0 to 4 Debye.
Additionally, ETM1-32 is a compound (III) having 9 aromatic and 1 heteroaromatic ring.
Ganier discloses the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound A18 having the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
157
186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 48), which is a compound of the claimed Formula (I) wherein:
m is 2 and n is 1;
k is 0;
Ar2 is a C10 aryl group (a naphthyl group);
Z is not required to be present;
G is such that G-phenyl has the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
117
137
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Ganier appears silent with respect to the property of wherein the dipole moment of a compound G-phenyl
PNG
media_image4.png
117
137
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is between 1 and 7 Debye.
The instant specification recites that the dipole moment of compound
PNG
media_image4.png
117
137
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is 4.19 D (specification Table 2, page 22). Since Ganier teaches the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound of Formula (I) where G is such that G-phenyl has the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
117
137
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein the dipole moment of a compound G-phenyl is between 1 and 7 Debye is considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Therefore, the device of Ganier meets claims 1-8 and 10-18.
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, 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 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganier et al. EP-3208861-A1 (hereinafter "Ganier") as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Ganier discloses the device as described with respect to claim 1.
Ganier does not specifically exemplify a device as discussed above wherein the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound is one selected from claimed compounds B-1 to B-25. For example, the compound A21
PNG
media_image5.png
211
215
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 46) differs from the claimed compound B-3
PNG
media_image6.png
195
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in that the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 in Ganier's Formula (Ia) are phenyl groups instead of methyl groups. However, Ganier teaches that R1 and R2 of Formula (Ia) may be C1 alkyl groups, C6 aryl groups, among others (¶ [0168]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Ganier, 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 two C6 aryl groups (phenyl groups) at the positions corresponds to the R1 and R2 of Formula (Ia) with C1 alkyl groups (methyl groups), because Ganier teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. 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 as the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound in the second electron transport layer of the device of Ganier and possess the beneficial properties of very low operating voltages and/or high external quantum efficiency EQE and/or very long lifetime, as described above taught by Ganier. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified device of Ganier corresponds to the claimed compound B-3.
Regarding claim 19, Ganier discloses the device as described with respect to claim 1.
For example, the compound ETM1-32 having a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
171
276
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a positional isomer of the claimed compound A24
PNG
media_image7.png
222
158
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and both compounds are encompassed by Ganier's Formula (5).
Given the general formula and teachings of Ganier, 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 compound ETM1-32 wherein the central phenylene is a para-phenylene instead of a meta-phenylene. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Ganier's formula (5) in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the first organic aromatic matrix compound in the first electron transport layer or the second electron transport layer in the device of Ganier and possess the beneficial properties taught by Ganier. 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.
The modified device of Ganier corresponds to the claimed compound A24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: SENKOVSKYY et al. EP-3182478-A1 discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising an n-type CGL, a p-type CGL and an ETL stack, wherein the ETL stack comprises a first electron transport layer comprising a first organic matrix compound selected from organic phosphine compound and a second electron transport layer comprising a second organic matrix compound (¶ [0231]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786