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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2015/0236262) (Cho) in view of Kato et al (US 2014/0008633) (Kato).
In reference to claims 1-11 and 27, Cho teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first compound of formula (1) that includes bis-carbazole compounds as shown below and a second compound of formula 10B for example a compound 136 as shown below as a mixed host for a light emitting layer that further comprises a dopant material (Cho abstract [0009]; p 47; [0337]).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
244
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cho does not expressly exemplify a compound of formula (1) that reads on the instantly claimed compounds of formula 1.
With respect to the difference, Kato, teaches in analogous art, bis-carbazole compounds for use in the light emitting layer of organic electroluminescent devices including the compound shown below and that it results in a device with long lifetime and low driving voltage (Kato [0001] [0018] [0073] [0074] [0186]).
PNG
media_image3.png
284
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the bis-carbazole compound of Kato as a bis-carbazole of Tada as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound above as described by Kato in order to provide a device with long lifetime and low driving voltage and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a device as claimed and wherein the compound 136 reads on a compound of formula (2) wherein each of X is N, each of Ar3 is phenyl, L is a bond, Ar4 is phenyl and e, f and I are each 0 and the compound of Kato reads on formula (1) wherein n is 0, Ar2 is phenyl, m is 1, Ar1 is phenyl and a, b, c, and d are each 0.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula (5).
For Claim 3. Reads on n is 0.
For Claim 4: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 5: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 6: Reads on a to d is 0.
For Claim 7: Reads on formula (6).
For Claim 9: Reads on all of X are N.
For Claim 10: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula (2).
For Claim 27: Reads on n +m = 1.
In reference to claims 8, the claim further limits the compounds of formula (3), which are optional embodiments of claim 1 (i.e. a second host selected from a compound represented by the following general formula (2) or general formula (3)) and therefore not required. As such, claim 8 is rejected based on similar reasons to claim 1 or 2.
In reference to claims 12 , Cho in view of Kato teaches the device as described above for claims 1 and 2. Cho further teaches that the light emitting dopant can be selected from a phosphorescent light emitting dopant such as an organometallic complex containing at least one metal selected from iridium (Ir), platinum (Pt), osmium (Os), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), halfnium (Hf), europium (Eu), terbium (Tb), and thulium (Tm) (Cho [00380]).
While Cho in view of Kato does not exemplify a device with the exact combination of host and dopants as instantly claimed, Cho and Kato clearly teach that such an option is a preferred configuration and that the selection of these dopants is within the scope of the described devices. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected a light emitting dopant from among those disclosed by Cho for use in the devices of Cho with host materials taught by Cho and Kato and thereby have arrived at the instantly claimed devices.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2015/0236262) (Cho) in view of Kato et al (US 2014/0008633) (Kato) and further in view of Tada et al (US 2018/0138420) (Tada).
In reference to claims 13, Cho in view of Kato teaches the device as described above for claim 1 and 2 that includes a dopant. Cho does not expressly teach that the dopant can be a thermally activated delayed fluorescent dopant.
With respect to the difference, Tada teaches, in analogous art, very similar devices including mixtures of host materials that include biscarbazoles and fused indolocarbazole compounds overlapping with the scope of those devices taught by Cho and Kato and further teaches that the dopant can be selected as a thermally activated delayed fluorescent dopant (Cho [0031]) and further teaches that the use of this method gives rise to high efficiency (Cho [0005] to [0006]).
In light of the motivation of using the thermally activated delayed fluorescent dopant as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the thermally activated delayed fluorescent dopant as described by Cho in order to provide a device with high efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claims 14-16, Cho and Kato teaches the device as described above for claims 1 and 2. While Cho teaches the use of typical deposition methods, Cho does not expressly teach that the deposition is done from a premixture or what the differences are in weight reduction temperature.
With respect to the difference, Tada teaches, in analogous art, very similar devices including mixtures of host materials that include bis-carbazoles and fused indolocarbazole compounds overlapping with the scope of those devices taught by Cho and Kato and further teaches that the first host and second host are preferably used after having been preliminarily mixed before vapor deposition and that it is preferred that a difference in 50% weight reduction temperature (T50) between the first host and the second host be 20 C or less (Tada [0030]). This teaching implies that the layer is formed using a method that requires vapor deposition of a premixture formed of the layers and that such mixture is selected to have the claimed properties and that such a selection is within the ambit of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It would have been obvious to have used the methods described by Tada to have prepared the device of Tada.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103 over Cho in view of Kato, Applicant argues that Cho requires the presence of specifically a “bis” carbazole. This argument is not convincing. Cho teaches the use of a compound of formula 1. While some of those materials include biscarbazole compounds, they are certainly not limited thereto. The formula 1 of Cho includes the disclosed compounds of Kato as pointed to herein and Kato provides specific motivation to use such materials.
Applicant further argues that the selection of the instantly claimed materials from among those disclosed by the prior art leads to unexpected results beyond what would be expected based upon the teachings of e.g. Cho. As evidence of this, Applicant points to results in the stant specification providing comparative devices. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in device properties, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, the instantly claimed devices comprise a difficult to fathom number (>10100) of possible combinations of materials whereas the specification provides examples of 23 combinations with only a few compounds. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming thousands of more compounds and even more devices. As applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by Cho, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
Applicant further argues that Kato does not teach a combination of first and second host compounds as claimed. However, Kato is not relied upon to teach a combination of materials, Cho teaches this. Further Applicant argues that Kato’s claim 13, paragraph 94 and table 1 uses carbazole compounds as hole transporting or hole injecting materials and not as a host. These paragraphs are not relied upon nor are examples necessary for a finding of obviousness and all embodiments are considered.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights