CTNF 18/026,932 CTNF 94839 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the communication filed on March 17, 2023. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim s 18 and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1 – 17 and 20 – 22 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 15, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Compounds and the Formulae in the specification are low resolution and it is difficult to discern the variables and atoms in the structures . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objection 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 9 – 14, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The Compounds and the Formulae are low resolution and it is difficult to discern the variables and atoms in the structures . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1 – 17, and 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 defines a luminescent layer comprising a host material with a hole-type host and an electron-type host that are capable of forming an exciplex. There are no structural limitations on either of the host materials. The only limitation required by the claim is a particular relationship between the HOMO level of the hole-type host material and the LUMO level of the electron-type host material. The specification and the examples only provide one particular combination of compounds that meet the claimed energic relationship- an indolocarbazole compound and a triazine compound. There is no discussion, teaching, or suggestion of what other hole-transport or electron-transport compounds might be combined meet the claimed limitations. Given the multitude and diverse structures that could give rise to this function, the specification does not provide support for the breadth of the claims. As such, it does not appear that Applicant has provided a sufficient number of species to adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus as required by the MPEP (See 2163-II-A-3-a-ii). Claims 2 – 17 and 20 – 22 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 5 – 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites that “at least three carbon-hydrogen bonds in the first six-membered ring, the second six-membered ring, the third six-membered ring, the fourth six-membered ring, the fifth six-membered ring and the sixth six-member ring other than the side chain are replaced by carbon diplogen bonds.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if each of the rings recited needs three carbon diplogen bonds or if between all the rings, a total number of three bonds are carbon diplogen bonds. It is further unclear because the options for the rings are a benzene ring, a benzene ring having a side chain, a nitrogen containing heterocycle having no substituent group and a nitrogen containing heterocycle having the side chain. As the limitation recites “other than the side chain,” it is unclear if the claims require the presence of a side chain or not. Claims 6 and 8 are similarly indefinite because it is not clear if the “at least four carbon hydrogen bonds in the first aryl group and the second aryl group are replaced by carbon-diplogen atoms,” requires four carbon diplogen bonds in each of the first and second aryl groups or four bonds across both groups. For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as only requiring three total carbon diplogen bonds across all rings and as not requiring a side chain in claim 5, and only requiring four total carbon diplogen bonds across all rings in claim 6. Claims 9 – 13 and 17 are rejected as being dependent on claim 5. Claim 7 recites that the six-membered rings are selected from “a nitrogen containing heterocycle having the side chain.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what “the side chain” refers to, and if it is intended to require a particular group or not. Additionally, the claim recites that at least one carbon-hydrogen bond in the side chain is replaced by a carbon-diplogen bond. This also renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claims require the presence of a side chain or not. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as not requiring the side chain. Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent on claim 7. Claim 9 refers to the following formula PNG media_image1.png 212 256 media_image1.png Greyscale . The resolution of the formula is so low that it is difficult to identify the variables and to map compounds onto the claimed formula. Additionally, R1 and R2 are defined as being selected from “a single bond” but it is unclear how the R groups, which appear to be off of the phenyl rings of the nitrogen atoms, could be “a single bond” not connected to anything. The low resolution of the formula in claims 10 – 12, 14 and 16 create similar indefiniteness issues. For Examination purposes, a best attempt at discerning the variables has been made in the rejection below. Claims 10 – 13, and 17 are rejected as being dependent on claim 9. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on claim 14. Claim 11 requires a particular energetic relationship between indolocarbazole groups and the bonding of the indolo group to the carbazole group. However, it is unclear whether the compounds require that all the substituents and variables in the compounds are the same, with the only difference being the bonding position, or if the compounds can differ in other ways. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as not requiring that the compounds all contain the same substituents. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim s 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 13, 16, and 17 require that neighboring X groups are fused to form any of the cyclic groups claimed. However, in the definitions for X1-X8 in claim 9 and X9 – X18 in claim 14, upon which claims 13, 16 and 17 depend, the X values can only be selected from C-D, C-phenyl and N. Therefore, the combination of X groups to form the claimed fused cyclic groups is not within the scope of the definitions for X in claims 9 and 14 and claims 13, 16 and 17 are seen as improperly broadening the scope of the claim . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Liu (CN113969168A, using the provided machine translation) . As per claims 1 and 2, Liu teaches: A luminescent layer comprising a host material comprising a hole-type host material and an electron-type host material, a guest material being doped in the host material (In Example 1, as shown in Table 3, compound P1, compound N1 and RD1 are provided in the electroluminescent layer. Compound P1 PNG media_image2.png 200 182 media_image2.png Greyscale contains the claimed hole-type material, Compound N1 PNG media_image3.png 208 192 media_image3.png Greyscale contains the claimed electron-type material.) Wherein by the effect of an external energy, the host material is configured to be capable of forming an exciplex, wherein an energy-level difference between a singlet-state energy level and a triplet-state energy level of the exciplex satisfies 0eV≤|ΔEst|≤0.3eV ([0006]: “Under the influence of electricity or light, the red light host material forms an excitocomplex, and the difference between the singlet excited state energy and the triplet excited state energy of the excitocomplex is less than 0.3 eV.”) Wherein an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a HOMO of the hole-type host material and an energy value of a LUMO of the electron-type host material satisfies 2.4eV≤|HOMO-LUMO|≤3.2eV (The HOMO of compound P1 is shown in Table 2 to be 5.26 and the LUMO of compound N1 is shown in Table 2 to be 2.62. The difference between the two values can be calculated to be 2.64, which is within the claimed range.) As per claims 20 and 21, Liu teaches: A light emitting device comprising the luminescent layer, and further comprising an anode and a cathode, and the luminescent layer is disposed between the anode and the cathode (In Example 1, as described in [0103 – 104], the device is taught to contain an anode, a cathode, and a luminescent layer containing N1 and P1 in between the two as claimed.) 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu 2 (US20240206323A1) . As per claim 1, Lui 2 teaches: A luminescent layer comprising a host material comprising a hole-type host material and an electron-type host material, a guest material being doped in the host material (Abstract: “Provided are a composition for an organic optoelectronic device, an organic optoelectronic device, including a Pt dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1, a first host including an electron transport group represented by Chemical Formula 2, and a second host including at least one hole transport group.”) Wherein by the effect of an external energy, the host material is configured to be capable of forming an exciplex (In [0087], Liu teaches that the first and second host have an energy level of a specific value as an advantageous combination for exciton formation. This is interpreted as being ‘configured to be capable of forming an exciplex’ as claimed.) Wherein an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a HOMO of the hole-type host material and an energy value of a LUMO of the electron-type host material satisfies 2.4eV≤|HOMO-LUMO|≤3.2eV (In Table 1 on Page 117, all of Examples 1 – 4 contain a hole type host as claimed and an electron type host and have a difference in the LUMO and HOMO levels between 2.530 – 2.625, which all fall within the claimed range.) As per claims 20 and 21, Liu 2 teaches: A light emitting device comprising the luminescent layer, and further comprising an anode and a cathode, and the luminescent layer is disposed between the anode and the cathode (In the manufacture of the Example devices, Liu 2 teaches a device structure with an ITO anode, an Al cathode, and a light emitting layer containing the claimed compounds between the anode and the cathode.) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 – 12, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu 2 (US20240206323A1), as applied to claims 1, 20 and 21 above . As per claim 3, none of the compounds in the Example devices contain a deuterium atom as claimed. However, Liu 2 teaches: Wherein the host material comprises at least one diplogen atom (Liu teaches that the electron transport group included in the first host may be represented by Chemical Formula 2 PNG media_image4.png 138 308 media_image4.png Greyscale ([0091]). A particular compound taught by Liu 2 is compound A-239 PNG media_image5.png 356 354 media_image5.png Greyscale . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace one of the electron transport compounds in the Example device with a compound, such as compound A-239 and arrive at the claimed invention wherein the host material contains at least one diplogen atom. It further would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the relationship between the HOMO and LUMO level stays within the claimed relationship because Liu 2 teaches that when the LUMO energy level of the first host and the HOMO energy level of the second host exceeds at least 2.505 eV, energy can be effectively transferred to the dopant, and thus the efficiency and life-span may be further improved ([0090]).) As per claims 4 – 10, Liu 2 teaches: Wherein the hole-type host material comprises an indolocarbazole-type derivative (Liu teaches that the second host may be selected from a compound of Chemical Formula IIB PNG media_image6.png 162 304 media_image6.png Greyscale ([0126]). A particular compound taught by Liu 2 is compound B-61 PNG media_image7.png 282 320 media_image7.png Greyscale . This compound contains the benzene rings and more than 3 carbon diplogen bonds are required by claim 5 and at least one carbon-diplogen bond as required by claim 7. The compound contains two aryl groups bonded to the nitrogen atoms of the five-membered rings wherein at least four hydrogen atoms are replaced by carbon-diplogen bonds as required by claims 6 and 8. This compound reads on the claimed Formula where X1-X8 are independently carbon-diplogen; R1 and R2 are both phenyl groups. The compound is represented by PNG media_image8.png 202 250 media_image8.png Greyscale in claim 10.) The electron-type host material comprises a triazine-type derivative (Compound A-239 above contains the claimed triazine-type derivative with three six-membered rings bonded to the triazinyl group, namely the groups comprise a benzene ring as required by claims 5 and 7. As per claim 11, Examiner is of the position that compounds can be chosen to meet the claimed limitations by adjusting the variables and substituents in the formulae. Furthermore, in [0126] of the specification as published, the instant specification teaches that by adjusting the relative position of two nitrogen containing five-membered rings in the phenyl group, i.e. when the relative position of the nitrogen atoms of the two nitrogen containing five-membered rings in the phenyl group has three carbon atoms therebetween, the conjugative effect of the neighboring sections of the indolocarbazole can be changed, whereby the highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO has a highest energy value. Therefore, the claimed relationship appears to be inherent and would necessarily be present in the compounds of Liu 2. As per claim 12, in [0128] of the specification as published, the instant specification teaches that by adding a substituent in the same one general structural formula, i.e., increasing the molecular weight of the structure of the same one general structural formula, the conjugative effect of the neighboring sections of the indolocarbazole can be changed, whereby the highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO has a highest energy value. Therefore, the claimed relationship appears to be inherent and would necessarily be present in the compounds of Liu 2. As per claim 15, in [0139] of the specification as published, the instant specification teaches that if all of the other groups are the same, an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of a structure having the side chain is less than an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of a structure not having the side chain. Accordingly, by adding a substituent in the same one general structural formula, i.e., increasing the molecular weight of the structure of the same one general structural formula, the conjugative effect of the group directly connected to the triazinyl group can be changed, whereby the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO has a lowest energy value. Therefore, the claimed relationship appears to be inherent and would necessarily be present in the compounds of Liu 2. As per claim 22, Liu 2 teaches: A display apparatus comprising the light emitting device ([0030]: “According to another embodiment, a display device including the organic optoelectronic device is provided.”) 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu 2 (US20240206323A1) , as applied to claim s 1, 3 – 12, 15 and 20 – 22 above and further in view of Liu (CN113969168A, using the provided machine translation) . As per claim 2, Lui 2 teaches that host materials are capable of forming an exciplex ([0087]). Lui 2 does not teach: Wherein by the effect of an external energy, the host material is configured to be capable of forming an exciplex, wherein an energy-level difference between a singlet-state energy level and a triplet-state energy level of the exciplex satisfies 0eV≤|ΔEst|≤0.3eV Liu teaches electroluminescent devices with a host material that is a mixture of a hole-type host and an electron-type host and that excitons are formed on the host material ([0002]). This is similar to the host materials of Liu 2. Liu teaches that when the difference between the singlet excited state energy and the triplet excited state energy of the excitocomplex formed is less than 0.3 eV, the excitocomplex has a TADF effect and allows for a reduced amount of dopant used, which decreases production costs ([0032]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select two host materials of Liu 2, such that the materials form an exciplex with an energy-level difference, such as that claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably ensure that the compounds create a TADF effect that allows for a reduced amount of dopant used and decreases production costs, as taught by Liu ([0032]). 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 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 2 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 3 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 4 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 5 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 6 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 8 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 9 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 10 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 11 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 12 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 13 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 14 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 15 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/026,932 Page 16 Art Unit: 1789
Prosecution Insights