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
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 6/29/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claims 1 and 19 to include the limitation that the molecular weights of the compounds represented by the formula (T-1) are independently 2 x 102 to 1 x 104. No substantial arguments were put forth by Applicants regarding the 103 rejection to Sasada et al. (WO 2018/198975) other than simply stating that the Office action does not identify where Sasada discloses formula (T-1) in the claimed first and second layers, and does not provide an articulated rationale for modifying Sasada to arrive at the claimed layered configuration. However, the Office action clearly shows that Sasada et al. teaches a first layer comprising at least one compound selected from compounds represented by formula (T-1) and a second layer containing at least one compounds represented by formula (T-1) and a cross-linked body of a compound having a cross-linkable group. Further, Sasada et al. explicitly teaches Applicants molecular weight limitation as now recited in the instantly field claims (paragraph 0113 of the English language equivalent US 2020/0136062). Without any substantive arguments or evidence showing unexpected results, the prior art rejection to Sasada et al. is wholly maintained.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasada et al. (WO 2018/198975). The English language equivalent US 2020/0136062 is relied upon for
citation purposes.
Claim 1: Sasada et al. teaches light-emitting devices which are exemplified to be comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a second organic layer comprising a compound represented by general Formula (C-1) and a cross-linked body of a crosslinkable material, a first organic layer comprising a compound represented by general formula (C-1), an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (see device example D11 as one example, paragraphs 0598-0602 and claim 1 of Sasada et al.).
Explicitly taught compounds which adhere to formula (C-1) of Sasada et al. are compounds C-101 through C-146 as taught by Sasada et al. in paragraph 0210. Out of these 46 compounds, compounds C-119, C-134, and C-137 satisfy all of the structural limitations of formula (T-1) of claim 1. As applied to formula (T-1) compound C-119, which has the structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
154
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
has XT1 equal to a single bond, LT2 equal to an aromatic hydrocarbon ring (benzene), ring LT2 equal to a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring (9,9-dimethylfluorenyl), and RT1 is equal to a spirobifluorenyl group. As applied to formula (T-1), compounds C-134 and C-137 (whose structures are taught on pages 23 and 24, respectively), have XT1 equal to single bond (compound C-134) or equal to O or S (compound C-137), RT1 equal to phenyl, LT2 equal to a benzene ring, and LT1 equal to a substituted spirobifluorenyl group. Additionally, compounds C-119, C-134, and C-137 (and all of C-101 through C-146) have molecular weights which fall within the 200-20,000 g/mol molecular weight range as instantly claimed. Additionally, Sasada et al. explicitly teaches that the compounds represented by formula (C-1) which correspond to formula (T-1) have a molecular weight range between 2 x 102 to 5 x 104 (paragraph 0113).
While the device examples do not include the inclusion of any of compounds C-119, C-134, or C-137, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have employed any one of the explicitly taught compounds C-101 through C-146 as taught by Sasada et al. before the effective date of the invention as any one of these compounds represent a predictable alternative which is a matter of routine optimization. A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect compounds C-119, C-134, and C-137 to function in a manner similar to the compounds employed in the device examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, including non-preferred/non-exemplified embodiments.
Applying this knowledge to the device examples of Sasada et al., includes embodiments such as device examples D14 through D24, where the second organic layer is comprised of a cross-linked body of a compound having a cross-linkable group, and a compound which satisfies formula (T-1), a first organic layer comprising a compound which satisfies formula (T-1) which is the same compound employed in the second organic layer. For example, a device prepared according to device example 11, with the exception that one of compounds C-119, C-134, or C-137 is employe instead of compound HM-3 represents an obvious embodiment based on the overall teachings of Sasada et al. Such a device satisfies all of the device and structural limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-4: In compounds C-119, C-134, and C-137, ring LT1 is a tricyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring and ring LT2 is a monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring, thereby anticipating claims 2-4.
Claim 5: In compounds C-119 and C-134, XT1 is a single bond, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claims 6-8 and 10: The device examples employ polymer HTL-1 or HTL-2. Each of HTL-1 and HTL-2 are polymers which are prepared via the copolymerization of monomers M1, M2, and M3 and in the case of HTL-2 additionally RM1. The second organic layer is prepared by mixing HTL-1 or HTL-2 with a compound which satisfies formula (C-1) as taught by Sasada et al. and heated under conditions such that polymers HTL-1 or HTL-2 becomes a cross-linked body (paragraphs 0576 and 0599). Monomers M1 and M2 have vinyl and phenylcyclobutane as cross-linkable groups (which are the same as XL-1 and XL-17 in claim 10). The repeating units M1 and M2 present in polymers HTL-1 and HTL-2 have constitutional units having a cross-linkable group which satisfies claim 6. Monomers M1 and M2 have as constitutional units, a unit which satisfies formula (Z) with Ar3 equal to phenylene, n equal to 1, nA equal to 4 or 5 with LA equal to methylene, and X equal to a crosslinkable group which is either XL-1 or XL-17. Polymers HTL-1 and HTL-2 further comprise repeating units from monomer M3 which satisfies formula (X) with aX1 equal to 1, ArX1 and ArX3 equal to phenylene, ArX2 equal to a (9-n-octyl-9’-3,5-dihexylphenyl)fluorenylene, aX2 equal to zero, and RX1 and RX2 equal to mesityl, which satisfies claim 8.
Claim 9: Monomer M3 as employed in the device examples of Sasada et al. satisfies Formula (Z”) of claim 9.
Claim 11: As described in claim 1 above, many of the device embodiments employ the same compound as compound (A-1) and compound (A-2), thereby satisfying claim 11.
Claims 12 and 13: In all of the device examples, the first organic layer further comprises a phosphorescent dopant (compounds B1, B2, and B3) which satisfies formula (1) of claim 13, thereby satisfying claims 12 and 13. As applied to formula (1), compounds B1-B3 have M equal to Ir, n1 equal to 3, n3 equal to zero, E1 and E2 equal to C, ring L2 equal to a substituted (B3) or unsubstituted (B1 and B2) benzene, and ring L1 equal to substituted imidazole (B1 and B2), or substituted triazine (B3), which are diazole and triazole rings.
Claims 14 and 15: Compounds B1-B3 also satisfy claims 14 and 15 as described in claims 12 and 13 above.
Claim 16: Paragraph 0323 of Sasada et al. explicitly teaches that the first layer may further comprise a hole transporting material, a hole injection material, an electron transporting material, an electron injection material, a light emitting material, and an antioxidant. Further, the device examples which employ HTL-2, which is present in the first organic layer comprises a light-emitting material, which is due to the presence of RM1 groups. As such, Sasada et al. renders obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art embodiments where the limitations of claim 16 are satisfied.
Claims 17 and 18: In the device examples of Sasada et al., the first and second layer are adjacent to each other and the second layer is disposed between the anode and the first layer, thereby satisfying claims 17 and 18.
Claim 19: The rejection of claim 1 above is wholly incorporated into the rejection of independent claim 19. As described in claim 1 above, the preparation of a second organic layer which is comprised of a cross-linked body of a compound having a cross-linkable group and a compound which satisfies formula (T-1) as recited in claim 19 is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the reasons described in claim 1 above. Employing any one of compounds C-119, C-134, and C-137 in the second organic layer in the manner described in paragraph 0599 of Sasada et al. results in a composition which comprises components (i) and (ii) as recited in claim 19.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights