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 b. the compound does not comprise a metal M and d. Y1 is selected from N, NR, PR, O, S, Se, CRR', SiRR', GeRR', BR, or BRR' in the reply filed on 07/03/2026 is acknowledged.
After reconsideration of the requirement of election of species set forth in the Office action dated 05/06/2026 and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement of election of species is hereby withdrawn with respect to the selection of variable Y1 ONLY. The requirement of election of species is maintained with respect to the selection of a. the compound comprises at least one metal M and b. the compound does not comprise a metal M.
Claims 1-7 and 17-20 encompass the elected species.
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/03/0226.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/07/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the cited reference WO-2008101842-A does not appear to be correct (it appears the Kind code is incorrect) and the references has been lined through. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to in the references lined through has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least a chemical structure formula of Formula I should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Additionally, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structures of Compounds 1 to 6 and Emitters 1 and 2 on page 143 of the specification are of poor resolution.
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.
Claim 5-7 is 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 claims 5-7, the claims recites structures where the position corresponding to Y1 is N=R; however, in claim 1 from which the claims depend, the definition of Y1 does not include N=R, though it does include NR. For example, claim 5 recites
PNG
media_image1.png
203
215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, claim 6 recites,
PNG
media_image2.png
205
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and claim 7 recites
PNG
media_image3.png
173
152
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. It is unclear how, if these structure are selected, that Formula I of claim 1 is met.
For purposes and examination, the claims will be interpreted such that theses structures are not included in the claims.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites "wherein the compound is selected from the group consisting of the following structures:…" and lists a table wherein the first entry, for example, reads
PNG
media_image4.png
251
389
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and a later entry reads
PNG
media_image5.png
259
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear from the table what the structures of the claimed compounds are. For example, it is unclear how to interpret "Compound-1-(R'1)(R'1)(R'1) to Compound-1-(R'84)(R'84)(R'83)" or "Compound-1-(Y1)(Y1)(R'1)(R'1)(R'1) to Compound-1-(Y76)(Y76)(R'84)(R'84)(R'83)". Is this meant to be a range? If so, it is unclear how this range is to be interpreted. Further, the claim recites NR'1 to NR'71 but it is unclear what these are. Does NR'1 with a nitrogen bonded to the structure R'1?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that for the structures on pages 3-6, each of the variables R'k, R'l, and R'h may be selected from the groups R'1 to R'84 listed on pages 6-10 and each of the variables Yi and Yj may be selected from a nitrogen bonded to one of the groups R'1 to R'84 listed on pages 6-10 or O, S, Se, CMe2, SiPh2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 5-7, the claims recites structures where the position corresponding to Y1 is N=R; however, in claim 1 from which the claims depend, the definition of Y1 does not include N=R, though it does include NR. For example, claim 5 recites
PNG
media_image1.png
203
215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, claim 6 recites,
PNG
media_image2.png
205
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and claim 7 recites
PNG
media_image3.png
173
152
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Thus, when any of the above noted structure is selected, the claims fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend and/or for fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which the depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. US-20190312214-A1 (hereinafter "Xia") in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1.
Regarding claims 1-5, 17, and 20, Xia teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an organic layer disposed between an anode and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound of a Formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
230
267
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0019]), used as a host material, charge transporting material, charge blocking material, and emitter in an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0010]). Xia teaches wherein the electroluminescent device is incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products including flat panel displays, monitors, among others (¶ [0034]). Xia teaches the compound effectively modulates the charge transporting properties and gives OLEDs better performance (¶ [0010], ¶ [0025]). Xia teaches examples of the compound in paragraph [0091] including for example Compound 1
PNG
media_image7.png
296
306
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 12) and Compound 24
PNG
media_image8.png
238
403
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 14).
Xia does not exemplify a compound that meets the claimed Formula I. For example, Xia's Compound 1 differs from the claimed compound in that none of X8 to X19 are CR where R is a non-hydrogen which is not joined with another group to form a 5-membered ring. However, Xia teaches that in the compound, the hydrogen atoms can be partially or fully replaced by deuterium (¶ [0056]).
Li teaches that a deuterated organic system has better thermal stability, and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices (¶ [0009]) and deuterated organic semiconductor materials exhibit improved performance including brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime compared to non-deuterated organic semiconductor materials (Abstract, ¶ [0023], and [0077]).
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 modify the compounds of Xia to include at least one deuterium, based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime, 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 modify the compounds of Xia to include at least one deuterium at a position that corresponds to the claimed RB, RC, and/or RD, because it would have been choosing at least one of 16 possible positions, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the organic layer of the device of Xia and possessing the benefits taught by Xia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Xia in view of the teachings of Li having the beneficial properties taught by Xia and Li in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified compounds of Xia in view of Li are each a compound of the claimed Formula I.
For example, the modified compounds shown above are each a compound of the claimed Formula I wherein:
ring A represents a 5-membered heterocyclic ring;
Y1 is C=R'';
X1 to X15 are each C;
at least one of RA, RB, RC, RD, RE is deuterium and the remaining are deuterium, hydrogen, aryl or heteroaryl;
R'' is CRR' where R is hydrogen and R' and RA join to form a ring; and
condition (3) is met.
The device comprising the modified compounds meets claims 1-5, 17, and 20.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. US-20190312214-A1 (hereinafter "Xia") in view of in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 (hereinafter "Li") as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Lee et al. US-20060103298-A1 (hereinafter "Lee") and Kai et al. US-20100187977-A1 (hereinafter "Kai").
Regarding claims 18-19, Xia in view of Li teaches the device comprising the modified compounds as discussed above.
Xia in view of Li does not specifically teach wherein the organic layer further comprises a host and the host is selected from one of the compounds in claim 19. However, Xia teaches the compounds may be used in combination with other materials including hosts (¶ [0114]).
Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent device which can prevent device characteristics from being degraded due to crystallization which may occur during device operation (¶ [0013]), or manufacturing (¶ [0076]), wherein the device comprises at least one light-emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one dopant and at least two host materials including a first host material and a second host material (¶ [0015]). Lee teaches the first host material is a small molecular material (¶ [0029]), but has a disadvantage in that it may be easily crystallized by heat and thus may lower device characteristics (¶ [0030], ¶ [0045]). Lee teaches that the crystallization of the first host material can be prevented by a second host material (¶ [0031]-[0032], ¶ [0046]-[0047]). Lee teaches that in this way device characteristic degradation and device damage which may result from crystallization can be prevented (¶ [0035], ¶ [0076]). Lee teaches the second host material may be one selected from a group including triazines, among others (¶ [0031]).
Kai teaches an organic electroluminescent device having an organic layer comprising a compound of a general formula (1), (2), or (3) as a host material of the light emitting layer (¶ [0023]). Kai teaches the device obtains high efficiency with good driving stability (¶ [0018]). Kai teaches examples of the compound including compound (3)
PNG
media_image9.png
273
323
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0038] page 4).
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 a second host compound in the device of Xia in view of Li, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent device characteristic degradation and device damage due to crystallization of the host compound of Xia which may occur during device operation or manufacturing, as taught by Lee.
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 have modified the device of Xia in view of Li and Lee by forming the second host out of the indolocarbazole compound, as taught by Kai. One would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches the second host being a triazine derivative and Kai teaches triazine containing host materials for organic light emitting devices. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Kai teaches the device comprising the host material obtains high efficiency with good driving stability and therefore forming the second host in the device of Xia in view of Li and Lee out of the compound of Kai would yield the benefit of high efficiency with good driving stability, as described above.
Claims 1-6, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. US-20190312214-A1 (hereinafter "Xia").
Regarding claims 1-6, 17, and 20, Xia teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an organic layer disposed between an anode and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound of a Formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
230
267
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0019]), used as a host material, charge transporting material, charge blocking material, and emitter in an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0010]). Xia teaches wherein the electroluminescent device is incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products including flat panel displays, monitors, among others (¶ [0034]). Xia teaches the compound effectively modulates the charge transporting properties and gives OLEDs better performance (¶ [0010], ¶ [0025]). Xia teaches examples of the compound in paragraph [0091] including for example Compound 1
PNG
media_image7.png
296
306
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 12) and Compound 24
PNG
media_image8.png
238
403
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 14).
Xia does not exemplify a compound that meets the claimed Formula I. For example, Xia's Compound 1 differs from the claimed compound in that none of X8 to X19 are CR where R is a non-hydrogen which is not joined with another group to form a 5-membered ring. However, Xia teaches R may be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 50 carbon atoms and a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 3 to 50 carbon atoms, among others (¶ [0014]).
Given the general formula and teachings of Xia, 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 positional isomer of the compounds of Xia wherein the aryl or heteroaryl substituent is substituted at a position corresponding to R of CR of one of X8 to X19. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Xia's Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the organic layer of the device of Xia and possess the properties of effectively modulation of the charge transporting properties and better OLED performance, taught by Xia. 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 position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP § 2144.09 II.
The modified compounds of Xia are each a compound of the claimed Formula I.
For example, the modified compounds shown above are each a compound of the claimed Formula I wherein:
ring A represents a 5-membered heterocyclic ring;
Y1 is C=R'';
X1 to X15 are each C;
at least one of RA, RB, RC, RD, RE is an aryl group (a phenyl group) or heteroaryl (a triazinyl group) and the remaining are hydrogen or aryl;
R'' is CRR' where R is hydrogen and R' and RA join to form a ring; and
condition (3) is met.
The device comprising the modified compounds meets claims 1-6, 17, and 20.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. US-20190312214-A1 (hereinafter "Xia") as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Lee et al. US-20060103298-A1 (hereinafter "Lee") and Kai et al. US-20100187977-A1 (hereinafter "Kai").
Regarding claims 18-19, Xia teaches the device comprising the modified compounds as discussed above.
Xia does not specifically teach wherein the organic layer further comprises a host and the host is selected from one of the compounds in claim 19. However, Xia teaches the compounds may be used in combination with other materials including hosts (¶ [0114]).
Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent device which can prevent device characteristics from being degraded due to crystallization which may occur during device operation (¶ [0013]), or manufacturing (¶ [0076]), wherein the device comprises at least one light-emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one dopant and at least two host materials including a first host material and a second host material (¶ [0015]). Lee teaches the first host material is a small molecular material (¶ [0029]), but has a disadvantage in that it may be easily crystallized by heat and thus may lower device characteristics (¶ [0030], ¶ [0045]). Lee teaches that the crystallization of the first host material can be prevented by a second host material (¶ [0031]-[0032], ¶ [0046]-[0047]). Lee teaches that in this way device characteristic degradation and device damage which may result from crystallization can be prevented (¶ [0035], ¶ [0076]). Lee teaches the second host material may be one selected from a group including triazines, among others (¶ [0031]).
Kai teaches an organic electroluminescent device having an organic layer comprising a compound of a general formula (1), (2), or (3) as a host material of the light emitting layer (¶ [0023]). Kai teaches the device obtains high efficiency with good driving stability (¶ [0018]). Kai teaches examples of the compound including compound (3)
PNG
media_image9.png
273
323
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0038] page 4).
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 a second host compound in the device of Xia, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent device characteristic degradation and device damage due to crystallization of the host compound of Xia which may occur during device operation or manufacturing, as taught by Lee.
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 have modified the device of Xia in view of Lee by forming the second host out of the indolocarbazole compound, as taught by Kai. One would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches the second host being a triazine derivative and Kai teaches triazine containing host materials for organic light emitting devices. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Kai teaches the device comprising the host material obtains high efficiency with good driving stability and therefore forming the second host in the device of Xia in view of Lee out of the compound of Kai would yield the benefit of high efficiency with good driving stability, as described above.
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