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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structure formulae on pages 36-37 and 44 are of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, it is suggested that the semicolon on the last line of the claim be deleted for ease of reading; and
in claim 7 it is suggested that "when the linking group is a carbon atom, a silicon atom, or a Sn atom" be deleted for ease of reading, because this scenario required by the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed recites "the emitting moiety is distinguished by a light emitting core… and a substituent part…" The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by "distinguished by". Does this mean the light emitting moiety comprises or consists of a light emitting core and a substituent part?
For purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the light emitting moiety comprises a light emitting core and a substituent part.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "a light emitting core that is a minimum conjugated structure…" No definition appear to be recited in the specification and this does not appear to be a recognized term of the art. It is unclear what a "minimum conjugated structure" encompasses and therefore the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claimed will be interpreted such that the light emitting core may be anything so long as there are some conjugated bonds.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "the emissive moiety" however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that "the emissive moiety" is referred to "the emitting moiety."
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, claim 1 recites "deuterium and tritium are defined as same element as hydrogen" and claim 6 recites "wherein the multifunctional emitting compound is substituted with at least one deuterium." The claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether or not deuterium (and tritium) are considered to be different or the same, and so, in the case of claim 6 it is unclear if the claim is further limiting the compound.
For purposes of examination, the claimed will be defined such that hydrogen and deuterium are considered the same.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites "wherein the charge stabilizing moiety and the emitting moiety do not change a HOMO energy, a LUMO energy or a band gap energy by 0.2 eV or more each other, while connecting to form the connection portion through a linking group or a spiro connection." It is unclear what is meant by "do not change… while connecting to form the connection portion." Claim 1 is directed to a device comprising a compound and it is unclear what connecting is happened that would or would not resulting a change in the properties. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that a compound that meets all of the limitations regarding the properties of HOMO energy, LUMO energy, and band gap energy of claim 1 also meets claim 8.
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 (hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claims 1-10, Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent element including at least one organic layer disposed between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes a light-emitting layer, and wherein the light-emitting layer includes a compound represented by a Formula 1 and a compound represented by a Formula 2 (¶ [0012]-[0014]), wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 is a dopant and the compound represented by Formula 2 is a host (¶ [0025]). Kim teaches examples of the compound represented by Formula 1 in paragraph [0093] including compound 1-74
PNG
media_image1.png
287
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 17). Kim teaches organic electroluminescent element that exhibits improved efficiency, color characteristics, and lifetime (¶ [0052]).
Kim does not appear to exemplify a compound of Formula 1 that comprises the claimed connection portion formed in a spiro connection. However, Kim teaches that substituents R1 to R4 may be selected from a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C30 aryl group, among others (¶ [0020]) and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the aryl group is a spirobifluorene group, such as compound 1-68 (page 16) and compound 1-101 (page 22).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phenylene linker between the fused boron-containing heterocyclic group and the carbazole group with a spirobifluorene group, because Kim teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the variable is selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a dopant in the light-emitting layer of the device of Kim and possess the beneficial properties of improved efficiency, color characteristics, and lifetime taught by Kim. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound has a structure wherein the carbazole substituent is the charge stabilizing moiety, the spirobifluorene group is the connection portion, and the fused boron-containing heterocyclic group is the emitting moiety.
Kim appears silent with respect to the properties of (i) the charge stabilizing moiety includes at least one atom having an unshared electron pair included in a HOMO or a LUMO wave function of the charge stabilizing moiety, (ii) the charge stabilizing moiety has a polarity greater than 0.00 Debye, (iii) a length of a longest axis of the charge stabilizing moiety is 7.5 A or more, (iv) a HOMO-LUMO gap energy of the charge stabilizing moiety is greater than or equal to a HOMO-LUMO gap energy of the emitting moiety, (v) a shortest distance between the charge stabilizing moiety and the emitting moiety by the connection portion is within 6 Å, (vi) the emitting moiety has a conjugated structure with a quantum efficiency of 50% or more in the visible light wavelength range of 400 nm to 700 nm, (viii) the emitting moiety has a conjugated structure with a quantum efficiency of 0.5% or more in the near-infrared wavelength range of 700 nm to 2500 nm, and (ix) wherein light emitting mechanism of the emitting moiety includes fluorescence emitting light from a singlet, phosphorescence emitting light from a triplet, and thermally activated delayed fluorescence emitting light when energy is transferred from a triplet to a singlet.
The applicant recites examples of the multifunctional emitting compound in paragraph [0130] of the specification. It is presumed that the preferred multifunctional emitting compounds disclosed in the specification, including Compound 4, possess the claimed properties. Since Kim teaches the modified structure discussed above, the substantially structure as Compound 4 disclosed by the applicant, the properties recited above are considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Seo et al. US-20130207088-A1 (hereinafter "Seo")
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the device comprising the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kim does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the light emitting layer further comprises a phosphorescent compound containing Ir or Pt or wherein the light emitting layer further includes a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material having a singlet and triplet energy difference of 0.3 eV or more.
Seo teaches a light-emitting element including a light-emitting layer which contains a phosphorescent compound and a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material, between a pair of electrodes, wherein a peak of a fluorescence spectrum of the material exhibiting thermally activated delayed fluorescence overlaps with a lowest-energy-side absorption band in an absorption spectrum of the phosphorescent compound, and wherein the phosphorescent compound exhibits phosphorescence in the light-emitting layer by voltage application between the pair of electrodes (¶ [0014]). Seo teaches the phosphorescent compound is preferably an iridium complex (¶ [0024]). Seo teaches the difference between the energy value of the peak of the fluorescence spectrum of the material exhibiting thermally activated delayed fluorescence and the energy value of a peak of the lowest-energy-side absorption band in the absorption spectrum of the phosphorescent compound is preferably 0.3 eV or less (¶ [0017]). Seo teaches the light-emitting element having high external quantum efficiency and a low drive voltage (¶ [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the phosphorescent compound and the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material of Seo into the light emitting layer of the device of Kim, based on the teaching of Seo. The motivation for doing so would have been to high external quantum efficiency and a low drive voltage, as taught by Seo.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereinafter "Hatwar").
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the device comprising the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kim does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the organic material layer comprises more stacks comprising a hole transport layer, an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer sequentially formed on the anode and a charge generation layer formed between two or more stacks.
In the analogous art of OLEDs, Hatwar teaches an organic light-emitting device (see Figure 1 and [0098]) comprising a first electrode (“anode 110”), a second electrode (“cathode 170”), a plurality of light-emitting units in the number of m disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (“N EL units”) comprising at least one emission layer (¶ [0092]), and a plurality of charge generation layers in the number of m-1 disposed between two neighboring light-emitting units (“N-1 intermediate connector regions”) wherein m is an integer of 2 or more (“N is an integer greater than 1” – see [0098]). Hatwar suggests that many different energy transfer processes can occur inside the emission layers (EMLs) of the light-emitting units and that the layer may be fluorescent or phosphorescent or a combination of both (¶ [0092]). Hatwar also suggests that the colors of the emission layers may be selected so as to obtain the desired properties. For example, Hatwar suggests that a white OLED can be achieved by including blue light emitting layers in combination with red and green emitting layers (¶ [0100]-[0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a white OLED comprising the organic EL device of Kim such that it includes the stacked emission layer structure including light-emitting units of different colors and connector regions disclosed by Hatwar wherein a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted by one light-emitting unit is different from the maximum emission wavelength of light emitted by the other light emitting unit, based on the teaching of Hatwar. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the desired white light emission as taught by Hatwar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhao et al. CN-113416206-A, cited on the IDS of 03/09/2023 teaches fused boron-containing heterocyclic compounds, see for example compounds on page 10.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights