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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0173064, filed on 12/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/05/2022 and 09/30/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 12/05/2022. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structures given in paragraphs [00310] and [00316] are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
174
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing font size, making the font bold, making the bond lines thicker and/or increasing the structure size.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The syntax of the claim is confusing. It would more clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to use the phrasing, “wherein the emission layer [[is to emit]] emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm.”
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 1-20 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.
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 10, the claims give definitions for CY11 to CY15 and CY21 to CY25, however, neither of formulae 1 or 2 comprise a CY12 or CY22.
In continuing examination, this will be interpreted as a typographical error for CY11, and CY13 to CY15, and CY21, and CY23 to CY25.
Also with respect to independent claims 1 and 9, the claims contain the limitation that n11, n13, n14, n15, n21, n23, n24, and n25 can be an integer from 0 to 5. This introduces uncertainty to the claim because when L11, L13, L14, L15, L21, L23, L24, or L25 is a single bond and its corresponding n variable is 0, it allows for a situation wherein the moiety of Formula 3 is not bonded to formulae 1 or 2.
In continuing examination, n11, n13, n14, n15, n21, n23, n24, and n25 will be interpreted as being selected from an integer of 1 to 5.
Also with respect to independent claims 1 and 9, the claims contain the limitation, “wherein Ar1 to Ar3 each do not include an indolocarbazolyl group”. The metes and bounds of “include” are unclear because this limitation can be interpreted in at least two ways.
In the first interpretation, Ar1 to Ar3 do not consist of an indolocarbazolyl group, but their substituent(s), R10a, may be a C18 heterocyclic group, which overlaps in scope with indolocarbazolyl.
In the second interpretation, Ar1 to Ar3 do not comprise an indolocarbazolyl group, which would extend the limitation to include that any substituents of Ar1 to Ar3 are also not an indolocarbazolyl group (see MPEP 2111.03).
In continuing examination, Examiner is interpreting this limitation as, “Ar1 to Ar3 each do not comprise an indolocarbazolyl group”. Support for this interpretation comes from the embodiments of the invention as pictured throughout the instant disclosure.
Claims 2-8 and 11-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuzaki (US 2016/0079545 A1, which corresponds with U.S. Pat. No. 10,454,042 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Fukuzaki discloses Example 1-186 (Table 1, col. 2, page 126) which is a light-emitting device (an organic electroluminescence device) comprising a first electrode (an anode, ITO), a second electrode (a cathode, Al), and an interlayer (an organic layer) between the electrodes (paragraph 0736) comprising a light emitting layer comprising compound C-56 (paragraphs 0736-0737, page 124), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
584
950
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when ring CY11 and CY13 to ring CY15 are each a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) group, X1 and X2 are carbon atoms, t11, t13, and t15 are 0 so a11, a13, a15, A11, A13, A15, n11, n13, n15, L11, L13, and L15 are not present, t14 is 1 and L14 is a single bond, A14 is represented by Formula 3, a14 is 1, and n14 is 1, b11 and b14 are 0 so that R11 and R14 are not present, b13 is 1 and R13 is a C1 alkyl group substituted with R10a wherein R10a is three fluorine atoms, b23 is 2 and the two R23 are independently a cyano group and a fluorine atom. Formula 3 is a trityl group (CPh3) wherein X3 is a carbon atom, and Ar1 through Ar3 are each a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group.
With respect to claim 2, Fukuzaki teaches the device of claim 1, and the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, as discussed above, and the interlayer further comprises a hole transporting layer (NPD) between the anode and the light emitting layer and an electron transport layer (BAlq) between the light emitting layer and the cathode (paragraph 0736).
With respect to claim 3, Fukuzaki teaches the device of claim 1, and the emission layer comprises the compound of Formula 1, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Fukuzaki teaches the device of claim 3, and the device is an electronic apparatus (an OLED), as discussed above.
With respect to claims 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Fukuzaki discloses compound C-56 (page 124), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
584
950
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when ring CY11 and CY13 to ring CY15 are each a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) group (claims 10 and 11), X1 and X2 are carbon atoms, t11, t13, and t15 are 0 so a11, a13, a15, A11, A13, A15, n11, n13, n15, L11, L13, and L15 are not present, t14 is 1 and L14 is a single bond (claim 12), A14 is represented by Formula 3, a14 is 1, and n14 is 1, b11 and b14 are 0 so that R11 and R14 are not present, b13 is 1 and R13 is a C1 alkyl group substituted with R10a wherein R10a is three fluorine atoms, b23 is 2 and the two R23 are independently a cyano group and a fluorine atom. Formula 3 is a trityl group (CPh3) wherein X3 is a carbon atom, and Ar1 through Ar3 are each a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group (claim 13).
With respect to claim 14, Fukuzaki teaches the compound of claim 9, and the phenyl groups of Ar1 to Ar3 are represented by instant formula 3A-1 when d1 is 0 and R3 is not present.
With respect to claim 15, Fukuzaki teaches the compound of claim 9 and Formula 1 is represented by instant Formula 1-2 when X11 and X14 are CH, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 16, Fukuzaki teaches the compound of claim 9, and the benzene rings of CY11 and CY13 are also represented by instant Formula CY1(1) when c11 is 0 and R1 is not present, or when c11 is 1 and R1 is a C1 alkyl group substituted with fluorine atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 17, Fukuzaki teaches the compound of claim 9, and CY14 and CY15 of Formula 1 are also represented by instant Formula CY2(1) when c21 is 0 and R2 is not present, or when c21 is 2 and R2 is a cyano group and a fluorine atom, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 18, Fukuzaki teaches the compound of claim 9, and the compound does not satisfy any of conditions <1-1> to <1-4>.
With respect to claim 19, Fukuzaki teaches the compound of claim 9, and the compound is not represented by Formula 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fukuzaki (US 2016/0079545 A1, which corresponds with U.S. Pat. No. 10,454,042 B2) as applied above.
With respect to claim 5, Fukuzaki teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Fukuzaki does not teach that the emission layer emits light in a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm.
Examiner is interpreting compound C-56, pictured and discussed above, to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it meets the requirements of the parent independent claim without needing any modification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Fukuzaki reads on the claims.
Fukuzaki is silent to the emissive wavelength of device Example 1-186. However, emissive wavelength is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when C-56 is used as a material in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be anticipated over Fukuzaki, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Fukuzaki was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II). A rejection under 35 USC 102 and 103 can be made when the prior art product seems to be identical except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic. See MPEP 2112(III).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzaki (US 2016/0079545 A1, which corresponds with U.S. Pat. No. 10,454,042 B2) as applied above, and further in view of Chi et al. (US 2017/0005279 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Fukuzaki teaches the device of claim 3, as discussed above.
However, Fukuzaki does not teach nor fairly suggest that the emission layer of the device comprises an organometallic compound comprising a carbene ligand.
In analogous art, Chi teaches a platinum complex for use in an OLD which comprises at least one carbene fragment (abstract) which can effectively increase the luminous efficiency of an OLED (paragraph 0007).
Chi teaches that carbene chelates, which have a carbon atom as a bonding atom, have a vacant orbital of a higher energy and can cause a blue shift to the emission wavelength, and effectively increase the d-d orbital transition energy level of the complex, such that the platinum complex still has good blue-light or green-light luminous efficiency when molecules are stacked (paragraph 0086).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbene metal complex of Chi as the organometallic compound in the emitting layer of the device of Fukuzaki in order to cause a blue shift to the emission wavelength of the compound, and effectively increase the d-d orbital transition energy level of the complex such that the platinum complex still has good blue-light or green-light luminous efficiency when molecules are stacked, as taught by Chi.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzaki (US 2016/0079545 A1, which corresponds with U.S. Pat. No. 10,454,042 B2) as applied above, and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Fukuzaki teaches the apparatus of claim 6, as discussed above.
However, Fukuzaki does not teach nor fairly suggest the electronic apparatus further comprises the instant thin-film transistor.
Fukuzaki and Matsudate are of analogous art as they are both drawn to organic light emitting devices. Matsudate teaches a design for an organic electroluminescent display which allows the device to be controlled and driven (abstract, and paragraphs 0003 and 0062). Matsudate teaches that the taught configuration of a source electrode, a drain electrode, an active layer, and a gate electrode, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electronically connected to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor is applicable to general organic electroluminescent displays to achieve high manufacturing yields (paragraphs 0062, 0071, and Fig. 11)
In view of the motivation of using the display component configuration of Matsudate 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 configure the electronic apparatus of Fukuzaki using the component configuration of Matsudate in order to provide an organic electroluminescent display and achieve high manufacturing yields and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzaki (US 2016/0079545 A1, which corresponds with U.S. Pat. No. 10,454,042 B2) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Fukuzaki teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 6, as discussed above. However, Fukuzaki does not teach nor fairly suggest the electronic apparatus further comprises a color filter.
In analogous art, Shin teaches an organic light emitting diode (abstract) which produces a full color image. Shin teaches use of a color conversion layer (color filter) to filter light emitted from an OLED in order to produce a full color image (paragraph 0133).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a color filter in the electronic apparatus of Fukuzaki in order to produce a full color image, as taught by Shin.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fukuzaki (US 2016/0079545 A1, which corresponds with U.S. Pat. No. 10,454,042 B2) as applied above.
With respect to claim 20, Fukuzaki teaches the compound of claim 9, as discussed above.
Compound C-56, which is pictured and discussed above, is derived from Fukuzaki Formula (3), wherein the indolocarbazole moiety is represented by Formula (3a-1), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
214
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, A is a benzene ring of Formula (3b) and B is a pyrrole substituted at the nitrogen atom with R34. Fukuzaki also teaches that R32 is a hydrogen atom (paragraph 0031) and R34 is an unsubstituted benzene (paragraph 0029).
Examiner notes that Fukuzaki is non-limiting with respect to the bonding position of the central pyrrole and benzene moieties (rings A and B), nor is Fukuzaki limiting with respect to the bonding position of the indolocarbazolyl to the tetraphenylmethane group.
Given the general formula and teachings of Fukuzai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the isomer of Compound C-56 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the emissive layer of the electroluminescent device of Fukuzaki and possess the properties taught by Fukuzaki. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces instant compound 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) – teaches relevant compounds (see for example the compounds of page 17).
Kim et al. (WO 2010/107244 A2) – teaches relevant compounds (see for example H99 on page 11 as a substituent for Ar1 and Ar2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786