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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the “Fig. 1” label needs to be removed. Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear. 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: for ease of reading in claim 1, it is recommended to insert the word “an” as follows in the limitation “a and b each represents the number of substitutions and an integer of 0 or 1”.
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 17 and 27 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 17 and 27 recite the light emitting layer contains a light emitting dopant other than the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material represented by general formula (1). As neither claims 17 and 27 nor claim 15-16 (of which claims 17 and 27 are dependent upon) previously recite that the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material is a dopant, it is unclear if this limitation (by using the phrase “other than”) is requiring the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material to be a dopant. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material is not required to be a dopant.
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 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by He (US 2018/0366653 A1).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 18, He teaches a D-A type compound represented by general formula (1), which provides an OLED with higher quantum efficiency and device lifetime when used as a light-emitting layer material (abstract; ¶ [0019]). Examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) include compound 6-3 (page 21).
Compound 6-3 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed general formula (1).
6-3:
PNG
media_image1.png
198
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image2.png
56
201
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1a:
PNG
media_image2.png
56
201
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1a-3:
PNG
media_image3.png
119
186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 6-3 reads on the claimed general formula (1) wherein:
X1 is S;
D is represented by formula (1a);
ring Y is formula (1a-3) fused as position j (claims 11-12 and 18);
Ar1 and Ar3 are each an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms, and Ar2 is not required to be present;
R1 to R4 are not required to be present;
a is 0 and b is 1; and
c, f, and h are not required to be present and l is 0.
As compound 6-3 reads on the claimed general formula (1), it is considered a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material.
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 13-17 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2018/0366653 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 19-22, He teaches the D-A type compound 6-3, as described above with respect to claims 10-12.
He teaches the D-A type compound represented by general formula (1) has a difference between the singlet and triplet energy levels of less than 0.3 eV, and in some embodiments, less than 0.1 eV (¶ [0059]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 15-17 and 23-27, He teaches the D-A type compound 6-3, as described above with respect to claims 10-14.
He fails to specifically teach a device including compound 6-3. However, He does teach an example of a device having the structure of anode/hole injection layer/hole transport layer/light emitting layer/electron transport layer/cathode, wherein the light emitting layer includes a host of the D-A type compound and a dopant of Ir(ppy)3 (¶ [0151]-[0153]).
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 6-3 as the host in a device having the structure discussed above, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of He according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED with improved quantum efficiency and device lifetime, as taught by He. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
As the light emitting layer includes compound 6-3 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant, the limitations of claims 16-17 and 27 are met.
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