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 .
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s election without traverse of Species (a), a high energy gap material represented by Formula I, in the reply filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged.
The elected species is encompassed by claims 1-2 and 5-19.
Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/09/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on each of 12/21/2022, 04/21/2023, 07/25/2023, 12/04/2023, 04/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, on numbered page 62, it is suggested that "Each of R1, R2,…" be changed to "[[E]]each of R1, R2…" for ease of reading;
in claim 9, "ring A is a fused polycyclic aryl or heteroaryl rings having at least 14 atoms selected from the group consisting of C or N" be changed to "ring A is a fused polycyclic aryl or heteroaryl ring having at least 14 atoms selected from the group consisting of C or N" for ease of reading; and
in claim 17, it is suggested that the numerals be removed and commas or semicolons used between groups for ease of reading.
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 1-2 and 5-19 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 claim recites on page 61 "Y1 and Y2 may together form a ring which is optionally further studied…" The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the phrase "which is optionally further studied" and how that relates to the ring which Y1 and Y2 may form.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted consistent with specification paragraph [0090], that is, Y1 and Y2 may join or fuse together to form a ring.
Claims 2 and 5-19 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, in multiple instances in the claims, the phrase "or any conjugate or combination thereof" is applied at the end of variable definitions. It is unclear what is mean by "conjugate" in this context. For example, does conjugate mean conjugate acid or base? Does this mean multiple of any of the above listed groups?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that multiple of any of the listed groups may be present or a combination of any of the listed groups may be present.
Claims 2 and 5-19 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 14, the claims recited "n is an integer, valency permitting" in multiple instances; however, the claims do not provide a number or a range of the integer. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what the integer of n may be. For example, can n be any of 1 to 4?
For purposes of examination the claims will be interpreted such that n is an integer from 1 to the maximum number that would result in full substitution. For example, in Formula I, n will be interpreted as an integer of 1 to 4.
Claims 2 and 5-19 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites a definition for variable L:
PNG
media_image1.png
184
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From the above, it is unclear whether or not, when L is a divalent linking group, if it is required to form a bond with ring A and with one of Y1a, Y1b, Y1c, Y1d, or Y1e and, if so, how this would be possible when L is selected from a covalent bond.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that L may be a single bond, a divalent linking group which forms a bond with ring A and with one of Y1a, Y1b, Y1c, Y1d, or Y1e, or a trivalent linking atom which forms one bond with ring A, one bond with Y1a, and one bond with Y2a.
Claims 10-12 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites
PNG
media_image2.png
128
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is unclear if the second recitation of "a substituted linking atom" is referring to the first recitation of a substituted linking atom or is reciting an additional substituted linking atom, and if reciting an additional substituted linking atom, it is unclear how this further limits or defines L1 and L3.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the second recitation of "a substituted linking atom" is changed to read "[[a]]the substituted linking atom" and is thus referring to the first recitation of a substituted linking atom.
Claim 15 is rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 14.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20160141538-A1 (hereinafter "Lee-538") in view of Lee et al. US-20110127513-A1 (hereinafter "Lee-513").
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 8, and 19, Lee-538 teaches an organic light emitting diode display including a first electrode and a second electrode opposed to the first electrode, a first light emitting unit and a second light emitting unit between the first electrode and the second electrode (¶ [0011], see also Fig. 6). Lee-538 teaches the first light emitting unit includes a first organic light emitting layer between a first hole transport layer and a first electron transport layer and the second light emitting unit includes a second organic light emitting layer and a third organic light emitting layer between a second hole transport layer and a second electron transport layer (¶ [0011]). Lee-538 teaches the first organic light emitting layer may be a blue fluorescent light emitting layer, the second organic light emitting layer may be a blue phosphorescent light emitting layer, and the third organic light emitting layer may be a yellow phosphorescent light emitting layer (¶ [0011] and ¶ [0110], see also Fig. 6).
Lee-538 does not teach a device comprising a compound of Formula I between a phosphorescent light emitting layer and a fluorescent light emitting layer.
Lee-513 teaches a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic derivative of a Formula 1 (¶ [0009]) used as a host of a blue phosphorescent dopant in a light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device (¶ [0112]). Lee-513 teaches that the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic derivative has excellent thermal stability, deep HOMO level, a wide band gap (i.e. high energy gap), a high triplet state, and hole stability, and teaches that the organic light emitting device comprising the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic derivative has improved light efficiency and improved life span property (¶ [0045]). Lee-513 teaches examples of the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic derivative of Formula 1 including compound 3-c-4
PNG
media_image3.png
418
361
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0118], page 118 and page 193).
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 have modified the device of Lee-538 by including the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic derivative of Formula 1 of Lee-513 in the blue phosphorescent light emitting layer of the device of Lee-538, which is the second organic light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Lee-513. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of improved light efficiency and improved life span property, as taught by Lee-513.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 3-c-4, because it would have been choosing from the list of specifically exemplified nitrogen-containing heterocyclic derivative of Formula 1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as in the blue phosphorescent light emitting layer of the device of Lee-538 and possessing the benefits taught by Lee-513. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic derivative of Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Lee-513 in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The compound 3-c-4 is a compound of Formula I wherein:
Y1a and Y2a are each N and Y1b, Y1c, Y1d, Y2b, Y2c, and Y2d are each C;
Y1 and Y2 together form a ring with is further substituted;
R1 and R2 are each hydrogen; and
n is in each case 4.
In the modified device of Lee-538 in view of Lee-513, the blue phosphorescent light emitting layer has a shared boundary with the third organic light emitting layer and the second hole transport layer, is between a blue fluorescent light emitting layer and a yellow phosphorescent light emitting layer, and comprises compound 3-c-4 and therefore meets the claimed interface layer.
Thus, the modified device of Lee-538 in view of Lee-513 meets claims 1-2, 5, 8, and 19.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20160141538-A1 (hereinafter "Lee-538") in view of Lee et al. US-20110127513-A1 (hereinafter "Lee-513") as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Li et al. US-20170305881-A1 (hereinafter "Li").
Regarding claims 14-16, Lee-538 in view of Lee-513 teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Lee-538 does not specifically teach wherein the phosphorescent emitter of the yellow phosphorescent light emitting layer meets the claimed Formula X or is one of the compounds listed in claim 18.
Li teaches a phosphorescent compound of a General Formula I (¶ [0008], ¶ [0164]). Li teaches the compound can provide improved efficiency and/or operational lifetimes in organic light emitting devices, as compared to conventional materials (¶ [0158]). Li teaches specific examples of the compound of a General Formula I including Pd(II) 2-(3-(3-pyridin-2-yl)phenoxy)phenyl)pyridine
PNG
media_image4.png
192
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0122]), which emits yellow light (see FIG. 12, ¶ [0027]), and which meets the claimed Formula X and corresponds to one of the claimed compounds of claim 18.
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 the yellow phosphorescent layer in the device of Lee-538 out of the phosphorescent compound of a General Formula I, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved efficiency and/or operational lifetimes, as taught by Li.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Pd(II) 2-(3-(3-pyridin-2-yl)phenoxy)phenyl)pyridine, because it would have been choosing from the preferred examples of the phosphorescent compound of a General Formula I, which emit yellow light, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as in the yellow phosphorescent light emitting layer of the device of Lee-538 and possessing the benefits taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the phosphorescent compound of a General Formula I of Li having the benefits taught by Li in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US-20160141538-A1 (hereinafter "Lee-538") in view of Lee et al. US-20110127513-A1 (hereinafter "Lee-513") as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Mizuki et al. US-20120112169-A1 (hereinafter "Mizuki").
Regarding claims 17-18, Lee-538 in view of Lee-513 teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Lee-538 does not specifically teach wherein the fluorescent emitter of the blue fluorescent light emitting layer comprises one of the structures in claim 17 or is one of the compounds listed in claim 18.
Mizuki teaches an aromatic amine derivative represented by a formula (1) (¶ [0011]) and that emits blue light with a high chromatic purity at a high luminous efficiency in an organic EL device (¶ [0010], ¶ [0021]). Mizuki teaches specific examples of the compound of formula(1) including D-2
PNG
media_image5.png
201
311
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 71), which corresponds to the claimed FLB2.
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 the blue fluorescent light emitting layer in the device of Lee-538 comprising the aromatic amine derivative represented by a formula (1), based on the teaching of Mizuki. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a high chromatic purity at a high luminous efficiency, as taught by Mizuki.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select D-2, because it would have been choosing from the preferred examples of the aromatic amine derivative represented by a formula (1), which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the blue fluorescent light emitting layer of the device of Lee-538 and possessing the benefits taught by Mizuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the aromatic amine derivative represented by a formula (1) having the benefits taught by Mizuki in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kang et al.US-20150144897-A1 discloses a white organic light emitting device in EXAMPLE 6 (¶ [0116], referring to ¶ [0101]-[0102]) comprising a second electron transport layer formed by doping LiF into a Material 7 between a fluorescent light emitting layer and a phosphorescent light emitting layer, where Material 7 has the structure
PNG
media_image6.png
496
260
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0116]); and
Parham et al. US-20230416264-A1 teaches compound of Formula (I) (¶ [0012]), including for example
PNG
media_image7.png
203
205
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0083]), which may be in a tandem white-emitting OLED (¶ [0092]), in an emitting layer as matrix material, an electron transport layer, or in a hole blocker layer and/or in an electron blocker layer (¶ [0093]).
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