DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 as filed on 12/21/2022 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15-18 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. 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. Note: Dependent claims are included based upon their respective dependence upon a rejected claim.
Claim 15 depends upon claim 13, which requires Ar1 as Formula 1-1 per claim 10, Ar2 as Formula 1-2 per claim 10, and Ar3 as Formula 1-1 recited in claim 13; however, claim 15 sets forth other meanings for Ar3 that are not a Formula 1-1 as required in claim 13. Claim 15 includes definitions not provided for in claim 13, upon which claim 15 depends.
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 10-13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being rejected by Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1).
Fleetham et al. teaches compounds of Formula I for organic electroluminescent devices (see title and abstract). More specifically, a Formula I example compound includes at least the following (see bottom of page 40), which anticipates the compound claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The above compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 compound claim 10 where each instant X1 to X3 is N, Ar1 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group, Ar2 is Formula 1-2 where Ar14 and Ar11 to Ar13 are each phenyl and Y1 is Si, and Ar3 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group. Regarding claim 11, L1 to L3 are not required as each of a1 to a3 may be zero and corresponding Ar14 is benzene in the above example compound. Regarding claim 12, L1 to L3 are not required as each of a1 to a3 may be zero and corresponding Ar14 is meta bonding benzene (per instant group 1-5-2) in the above example compound. Regarding claim 13, Ar3 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group in the above compound. Regarding claims 15 and 16, Formula 1-4 is considered to be the Formula 1-1 group for Ar3 of claim 13, upon which claim 15 depends. Claim 18 is included in the rejection, because a group of Formula 1-3 is not necessarily required to be present.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2019/0081248).
Lin et al. teaches OLEDs comprising compounds of Formula I, G1-Z, comprising the following Z group (see abstract and Z1 in par. 54) per instant Formula 1 compounds of independent claims 1 and 10:
PNG
media_image2.png
154
148
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The G1 group may include the following A11 or A12 of par. 55:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
278
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
196
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Each A1 to A6 may be C or N (see par. 52). R21 and R22 substituent groups may include at least arylalkyl (see par. 55. 36, 32, 38), which would include methyl substituted by aryl phenyl groups per instant Formula 1-2 when Y1 is C.
Further regarding claim 1 device structure and claim 2, the compound is used in an emitting layer of a device structure (see abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the device emissive layer further comprises a phosphorescent emitting material (see par. 60).
Regarding claim 4, a device may include a hole transport region and an electron transport region (see par. 82-91, 113-118).
Regarding claim 5, blue light emission may be obtained from an emissive layer (see par. 62).
Regarding claim 7, an OLED may be used in an electronic application (see par. 2-4).
Regarding claim 9, a filter for colors may be used in a device (see par. 4).
Regarding claim 11, note that L1 to L3 are not necessarily required as present and further note that at least the following G1 (par. 57) group is taught, which corresponds to linking groups of the claims being benzene group.:
PNG
media_image4.png
196
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 12, note that L1 to L3 are not necessarily required. With respect to Ar14, a R21 or R22 may bond at any location around the phenyl group to which it is attached.
Regarding claim 14, both of R21 and R22 of A11 or A12 may be selected as arylalkyl per instant group 1-2.
Regarding claims 15, the arylalkyl group may include phenyl groups per Ar11 to Ar13 and a group in A11 or A12 may correspond to a phenyl as substituted or unsubstituted.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, a R21 or R22 group of a A11 or A12 group shown above may be selected as heteroaryl (see par. 39, 55) such as carbazole (see par. 39).
Regarding claim 17, a R21 or R22 substituent group may be arylalkyl (see par. 55) where the aromatic group (see par. 36) may be understood as heteroaromatic as carbazole (see par. 39).
Regarding claim 19, the above Z group corresponds to instant CY1 and CY2 as benzene group and corresponds to group 1-1-1 of claim 20.
While Lin et al. does not show an example Formula 1 with the selected Z, G1, and R21 and R22 substituent groups in combination as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have formed derivatives as defined by Lin et al. and placed them into layered device structures as described above wherein the resultant compounds and device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Lin et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2019/0081248) in view of view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Lin et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Lin et al. teaches a light emitting device, but does not appear specifically to teach a display comprising a transistor with a source and drain electrode. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a source region and a drain region as part of a thin film transistor (see par. 61) and color filters for pixels (see par. 75) as part of an OLED display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Jeong et al. to a device as taught by Lin et al. to form a display device, because Jeong et al. teaches using a color filter and using a thin film transistor with a device is beneficial in forming an operational light emitting display. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Lin et al. and in further view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1).
Fleetham et al. teaches compounds of Formula I for organic electroluminescent devices (see title and abstract). More specifically, a Formula I example compound includes at least the following (see bottom of page 40):
PNG
media_image1.png
276
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The above compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 of claim 1 where each instant X1 to X3 is N, Ar1 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group, Ar2 is Formula 1-2 where Ar14 and Ar11 to Ar13 are each phenyl and Y1 is Si, and Ar3 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group. It is not seen where the specific, above compound was selected in forming an example device structure; however, Fleetham et al. describes the compounds for an emissive layer (see par. 137-139) per instant claims 1 and 2. Regarding claim 3, a phosphorescent emitter may be added (see par. 139).
Regarding claim 4, a device may include a hole transport region and an electron transport region (see par. 160-166, 180-184).
Regarding claim 5, blue light emission may be obtained from an emissive layer (see par. 5).
Regarding claim 7, an OLED may be used in an electronic application (see par. 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, a filter for colors may be used in a device (see par. 5).
While Fleetham et al. does not show an example device with the specific compound as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have formed device structures as discussed by Fleetham et al. having the compound as described above wherein the resultant device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Fleetham et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1) in view of view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Fleetham et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Fleetham et al. teaches a light emitting device, but does not appear specifically to teach a display comprising a transistor with a source and drain electrode. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a source region and a drain region as part of a thin film transistor (see par. 61) and color filters for pixels (see par. 75) as part of an OLED display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Jeong et al. to a device as taught by Fleetham et al. to form a display device, because Jeong et al. teaches using a color filter and using a thin film transistor with a device is beneficial in forming an operational light emitting display. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Fleetham et al. and in further view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach a device comprising a heterocyclic material according to instant Formula 1 within a layer functioning as a hole transporting layer in a device that also includes an emitting layer and electron transport region as required by claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chaskar, Atul, Hsiao‐Fan Chen, and Ken‐Tsung Wong. "Bipolar host materials: a chemical approach for highly efficient electrophosphorescent devices." Advanced Materials 23.34 (2011): 3876-3895.
The non-patent literature article discusses nitrogen heterocycle compounds for electrophosphorescent devices (see Fig. 2). The compounds are considered relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786