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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on July 24, 2020.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on January 23, 2023.
Claims 1 – 17 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on January 23, 2023, September 24, 2024, and May 20, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 defines Rb as being selected from a group of variables. However, Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which does not contain the claimed variable. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what variable claim 7 is referring to.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to read on the Ra variables.
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)(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 – 5, 7, 9 – 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharifidehsari (WO2021014023A1).
As per claims 1 – 5, 7, Sharifidehsari teaches:
A first chemical moiety comprising a structure of Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
194
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Sharifidehsari teaches compound
PNG
media_image2.png
262
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on page 57. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein T and T’ are the binding site of a single bond linking the first chemical moiety to one of the two second chemical moieties, wherein the second chemical moiety is represented by Formula IIa in claim 4, and Formula IIb in claim 5; V, V’, X, X’, Y, Y’, R11, R13, R14, and R15 are all RI, wherein RI is hydrogen; W, W’, and R12 are RA, where RA is a structure of Formula BN-I wherein one RBN is CN and the remainder BBN groups are hydrogen; Z is a direct bond; two Ra groups are C6 aryl groups and the remaining Ra groups are hydrogen.)
As per claims 9 – 13, Sharifidehsari teaches:
An optoelectronic device comprising the organic molecule as a luminescent emitter, wherein the optoelectronic device is at least one selected from the group consisting of ordinary light-emitting diodes (In the Table on page 140, compound EB-3, which is the same as the compound above, is provided as the EB component in and OLED as a component of the emission layer as described in the Results II Table on page 138 as containing a host material in an amount of 84% by weight, the EB compound in an amount of 15%, and a small FWHM emitter in an amount of 1% by weight.)
As per claims 14 and 16, Sharifidehsari teaches:
The optoelectronic device comprises a substrate, an anode, a cathode, wherein the anode or the cathode is on the substrate, and a light emitting layer between the anode and the cathode and comprising the compound (Device H, as described in Table 2, teaches a glass substrate, an ITO anode and an AL cathode, with the emission layer in between as claimed.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifidehsari (WO2021014023A1) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7, 9 – 14, and 16.
As per claim 6, the compound above does not teach that the second chemical moiety is a single substituted carbazole group as required by Formula IIc. However, Sharifidehsari teaches compounds with a single phenyl substituent off of the carbazole group, such as
PNG
media_image3.png
140
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on Page 55. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly remove one of the phenyl substituents of the compound of Sharifidehsari above and arrive at the claimed compound.
Sharifidehsari includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Sharifidehsari being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of longer lifetime and/or higher efficiency (Page 5, Lines 8 – 12), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 15 and 17, Sharifidehsari does not specifically teach the processing of the compound above. However, Sharifidehsari teaches that the layers of the device may be deposited by any suitable method including solution processing (Page 122, Line 37 – Page 123, Line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any known processing method for the deposition of the OLED layers, including the claimed solution processing because Sharifidehsari teaches that this was known as a predictably suitable method for deposition of OLED layers (Page 122, Line 37 – Page 123, Line 9).
Claims 1 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danz (EP3670507A1).
As per claims 1 – 7, Danz teaches:
A first chemical moiety comprising a structure of Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
194
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Danz teaches compound
PNG
media_image4.png
254
152
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in [0183] on page 42. This compound does not contain the phenylnitrile substituent off of the third phenyl group of the triazine ring. However, the compounds of Danz are of the Formula
PNG
media_image5.png
230
226
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0006]), where R11 – R15 can be selected from a C6 aryl that can be substituted with a group consisting of CN ([0021 – 0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a third phenylnitrile substituent on the compound of Danz above and arrive at the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the claim reads on the claimed formula wherein T and T’ are the binding site of a single bond linking the first chemical moiety to one of the two second chemical moieties, wherein the second chemical moiety is represented by Formula IIa in claim 4, and Formula IIb in claim 5; V, V’, X, X’, Y, Y’, R11, R13, R14, and R15 are all RI, wherein RI is hydrogen; W, W’, and R12 are RA, where RA is a structure of Formula BN-I wherein one RBN is CN and the remainder BBN groups are hydrogen; Z is a direct bond; all Ra groups are hydrogen.)
Danz includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Danz being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of higher efficiency ([0005]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 8, Danz teaches:
A method for preparing the organic molecule, the method comprising reacting a substituted 2,4-dichloro-6-(chlorophenyl)triazine (In [0161 – 0162], Danz teaches that 2,4-dichloro-6-phneyl-1,3,5-triazine is a reactant in the synthesis of the compounds.)
As per claims 9 – 13, Danz teaches:
An optoelectronic device comprising the organic molecule as a luminescent emitter, wherein the optoelectronic device is at least one selected from the group consisting of ordinary light-emitting diodes ([0001]: “The invention relates to light-emitting organic molecules and their use in organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) and in other optoelectronic devices.” & [0102]: “In a further embodiment, the light-emitting layer EML comprises (or (essentially) consists of) a composition comprising or consisting of: (i) 1-50 % by weight, preferably 5-40 % by weight, in particular 10-30 % by weight, of one organic molecule according to the invention; (ii) 5-98 % by weight, preferably 30-93.9 % by weight, in particular 40-88% by weight, of one host compound H; (iii) 1-30 % by weight, in particular 1-20 % by weight, preferably 1-5 % by weight, of at least one further emitter molecule F with a structure differing from the structure of the molecules according to the invention…”)
As per claims 14 and 16, Danz teaches:
The optoelectronic device comprises a substrate, an anode, a cathode, wherein the anode or the cathode is on the substrate, and a light emitting layer between the anode and the cathode and comprising the compound ([0083]: “A light-emitting electrochemical cell consists of three layers, namely a cathode, an anode, and an active layer, which contains the organic molecule according to the invention.” & [0144]: “The methods used to manufacture the optoelectronic device, in particular the OLED according to the present invention are known in the art. The different layers are individually and successively deposited on a suitable substrate by means of subsequent deposition processes.”)
As per claims 15 and 17, Danz teaches:
A method for producing an optoelectronic device, the method comprising depositing the organic molecule by vacuum evaporation method or from a solution ([0178]: “Optoelectronic devices, such as OLED devices, comprising an organic molecule according to the invention can be produced via vacuum-deposition methods.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789