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 § 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 1-16 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. The present claims are unclear for a number of reasons. First, the term “binding energy” of claim 1 is ambiguous as it is unclear if it refers to an electron binding energy (in an anion) or a bond dissociation energy (BDE). If the latter, specific bonds must be specified as there are more than one chemical bond with different BDE’s in an organic anion. The other claims depend on claim 1 but fail to remedy the deficiency and they are therefore indefinite as well. Second, the chemical structures in claims 2-4 are illegible. Third, many chemical structures in the claims may be substituted, but the metes and bounds of the term “substituted” are not set forth anywhere in the specification. Fourth, claim 4 recites “wherein the light-emitting layer is represented by a structure selected from the following Formulas 7 and 8”, which is confusing as the “structure” is that of a chemical compound and cannot be equated to a physical “layer”.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ihn et al., Adv. Sci. 2017, 4, 1600502.
Regarding claim 1, Ihn et al. discloses the following OLED (see Fig. 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
492
1268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein BDpyInCz is a TADF dopant that emits blue light and the difference between the LUMO of BDpyInCz (which is being identified with the claimed first compound) and the LUMO of mCBP-CN (which is being identified with the claimed second compound) is 0.2 eV. Because mCBP-CN, due to the presence of the cyano substituent, is electron-transporting whereas BDpyInCz is relatively hole-transporting (page 2, right column), i.e., mCBP-CN has a greater electron affinity in the anion state, the anionic form of mCBP-CN has a greater binding energy than that of BDpyInCz. Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable. So are claims 3, 6, 8-9, 12 and 15.
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 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihn et al., Adv. Sci. 2017, 4, 1600502.
Regarding claim 10, the device of claim 8 is disclosed by Ihn et al. as explained above. The reference fails to disclose an LT90 lifetime of the device at 1,000 nits. However, it does disclose that the device has an LT80 of 21 hours at the driving voltage of 4.74 V and a luminance of 500 cd/m2 (1 cd/m2 = 1 nit) (see last entry in Table 1), and that the device has a luminance greater than 1,000 nits at a voltage of approximately 6 V (Fig. 2b). Since it takes about 10 hours for the luminance of the device to drop to 90% (Fig. 3a), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time the instant invention was filed to expect the device to have an LT90 lifetime of at least 10 hours at a luminance of 1,000 nits (i.e., at a driving voltage of about 6 V).
Claims 2, 5, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihn et al., Adv. Sci. 2017, 4, 1600502 in view of US 2015/0236274 A1 to Hatakeyama et al.
Regarding claim 2, the device of claim 1 is disclosed by Ihn et al. as explained above. The reference employs BDpyInCz due to its blue emission and long lifespan, but fails to disclose the organoboron compound of claim 2. However, Hatakeyama et al. discloses organoboron compounds that are blue light emitters via TADF. Examples of which include
PNG
media_image2.png
336
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image3.png
332
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The organoboron compounds are said to produce “excellent organic EL element[s]” (see [0619]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the device disclosed by Ihn et al. by replacing BDpyInCz with the organoboron compounds disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. and expect a similar result. Claim 2 is accordingly unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). So are claims 5, 11 and 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 13 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The device of claim 4 is not obvious over the combination of Ihn and Hatakeyama, which represents the closest prior art of record. Hatakeyama does teach organoboron compounds that read on formula 7 (see, for example, compound 1-447). However, there is not an obvious reason for a POSITA to expect the device disclosed by Ihn et al., or modify said device, to have photosensitive hyperfluorescence.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights