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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 03/31/2026, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 19 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-15 and 20 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1), and of claims 16-19 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2021/0167311 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-20 are originally filed.
Claims 1, 6, and 19 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuuki (US 2020/0185626 A1).
With respect to claims 1-7, Yuuki discloses compound 60 (page 17), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Yuuki Formula 3 when R8 and R--9 are represented by Formula 3-2 (paragraph 0093), as pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
192
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yuuki also teaches that Rd is an aryl group of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) (paragraph 0094, lines 7-8), Y is a boron atom, Z1 and Z2 are each nitrogen atoms (paragraphs 0089 and 0009, lines 1-2), R16 is a heteroaryl group (paragraph 0087, lines 10-12), such as carbazolyl (paragraph 0059, lines 14-15, see also compound 20 on page 11), and R6, R7, R10 through R15, R17 through R23, R25 and R26 are hydrogen atoms (paragraph 0087, lines 1-2).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when A11 through A13 are a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) group, R162 is -Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3), wherein Q1, Q2, and Q3 are all a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, R152 is an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl (carbazolyl) group (instant formula 2-1), and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms.
Yuuki includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Yuuki being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a polycyclic compound which, when used in an organic electroluminescent device, results in improved efficiency and life of the device, (paragraph 0102, lines 1-4), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 8, Yuuki teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, while Yuuki gives several examples of the described compounds’ maximum emissive wavelength (see for example, Table 2 on page 27) which are all within the claimed range of at least 430 nm to not more than 500 nm, Yuuki does not give the specific peak wavelength of compounds of Formula 3.
Examiner is interpreting the compound described above to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it falls within the limitations of the parent independent claim. 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 Yuuki reads on the claims.
Yuuki is silent to peak wavelength in a photoluminescence spectrum of the described compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the polycyclic compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Yuuki, 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 Yuuki was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 9, Yuuki teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, while Yuuki gives several examples of the described compounds’ full width at half maximum (FWHM) (see for example, Table 2 on page 27) which are all within the claimed range of 45 nm or less, Yuuki does not give the specific peak wavelength of compounds of Formula 3.
Examiner is interpreting the compound described above to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it falls within the limitations of the parent independent claim. 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 Yuuki reads on the claims.
Yuuki is silent to the FWHM of the described compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the polycyclic compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Yuuki, 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 Yuuki was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 10, Yuuki teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Yuuki does not give the specific singlet-triplet energy gap (ΔEST, found value) of compounds of Formula 3.
Examiner is interpreting the compound described above to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it falls within the limitations of the parent independent claim. 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 Yuuki reads on the claims.
Yuuki is silent to the ΔEST of the described compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the polycyclic compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Yuuki, 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 Yuuki was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claims 11-13 and 15, Yuuki teaches the compound of claim 1, and Yuuki also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (an anode, paragraph 0035), a second electrode (a cathode, paragraph 0115), and an organic layer between the anode and cathode, and the organic layer comprises an emission layer and the emission layer comprises a host and emitter (paragraph 0011) and the compound of claim 1 is a delayed fluorescent emitter (paragraph 0162).
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 compound of Yuuki as a delayed fluorescent emitter in combination with a host material in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device with the claimed structure, as taught by Yuuki.
With respect to claim 14, Yuuki teaches the device of claim 13, as discussed above.
However, while Yuuki gives several examples of devices comprising the described compounds wherein the maximum emissive wavelength (see for example, Table 2 on page 27) of the devices are all within the claimed range of at least 430 nm to not more than 500 nm, Yuuki does not give the specific peak wavelength of compounds of Formula 3.
Examiner is interpreting the device comprising the compound discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim as the emissive compound falls within the limitations of the parent independent claim. 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 device comprising the compound of Yuuki reads on the claims.
Yuuki is silent to the peak wavelength in a photoluminescence spectrum of the described emitter compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the polycyclic compound is used as an emitter in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device with the claimed composition, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Yuuki, 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 Yuuki was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 20, Yuuki teaches the device of claim 11, and Yuuki also teaches that suitable applications of organic electroluminescent devices include a display device because the decrease of driving voltage and the increase of emission efficiency and life of the organic electroluminescent device are beneficial for display devices (paragraph 0003).
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 device of Yuuki in an apparatus such as a display device as the decrease of driving voltage and increase of emission efficiency and life of the organic electroluminescent device make it a beneficial application, as taught by Yuuki.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuuki (US 2020/0185626 A1) above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2021/0167311 A1)
With respect to claim 16, Yuuki teaches the device of claim 12, as discussed above.
However, Yuuki does not teach that the emitting layer should comprise a sensitizer material in addition to the host and dopant materials.
In analogous art, Jeon teaches an organic light emitting device wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host, dopant, and sensitizer (abstract).
Jeon teaches Examples 1 through 11 in Table 3 (page 596) which all comprise a first and second host, sensitizer, and dopant. Jeon goes on to teach Comparative Examples 1F, 2F-1, 2F-2, 3F, 4F, 5F-1, 5F-2, 6F, 7F, 8F, and 9F in Table 4 (page 597), which are analogous to Examples 1 through 11 respectively, except that they do not comprise a sensitizer.
Jeon teaches that the devices comprising a sensitizer demonstrate improved characteristics such as improved lifespan, external quantum efficiency, and roll-off compared to their respective devices which lack a sensitizer (paragraph 0366).
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 sensitizer material in combination with the host and dopant materials of Yuuki in order to obtain improved lifespan, external quantum efficiency, and roll-off, as taught by Jeon.
With respect to claim 17, Yuuki and Jeon teach the device of claim 16, as discussed above.
However, while Yuuki gives several examples of device comprising the described compounds wherein the maximum emissive wavelength (see for example, Table 2 on page 27) of the devices are all within the claimed range of at least 430 nm to not more than 500 nm, neither Yuuki nor Jeon give the specific peak wavelength of a device comprising compounds of Formula 3.
Examiner is interpreting the device comprising the compound discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim as the emissive compound falls within the limitations of the parent independent claim. 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 device comprising the compounds of Yuuki and Jeon reads on the claims.
Yuuki and Jeon are silent to the peak wavelength in a photoluminescence spectrum of a device comprising the described emitter compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the polycyclic compound is used as an emitter in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device with the claimed composition, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Yuuki and Jeon, 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 Yuuki and Jeon were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 18, Yuuki and Jeon teach the device of claim 16, and Yuuki also teaches that and the compound is a delayed fluorescent emitter (paragraph 0162).
With respect to claim 19, Yuuki and Jeon teach the device of claim 16, as discussed above.
However, neither Yuuki nor Jeon teach the specific decay times of compounds of Formula 3.
Examiner is interpreting the heterocyclic compound discussed above to meet the requirements of Condition 5 of the instant claim as the heterocyclic compound falls within the limitations of the parent independent claim. 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 Yuuki reads on the claims.
Yuuki is silent to the decay time of the described heterocyclic emitter compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the heterocyclic emitter compound is used in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device with the claimed composition, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Yuuki and Jeon, 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 Yuuki and Jeon were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights