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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of paragraph [0074]—for example Formulas CY2-1 through CY2-14 and CY4-38 through CY4-59—have poor resolution and are difficult to read.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of claim 10—for example Formulas CY2-1 through CY2-14 and CY4-38 through CY4-59—have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (US 2021/0305520 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”).
Regarding claims 9-14 and 18-19: Thompson discloses the compound shown below {p. 69}.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the circled nitrogen is pi-electron deficient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2021/0305520 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 15: Thompson discloses the compound shown below {p. 69}.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the circled nitrogen is pi-electron deficient.
Thompson does not exemplify a compound in which the substituent comprising the pi-electron deficient nitrogen is instead a triazine group.
However, Thompson teaches that the emitter of Thompson can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0085]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where RD can be heteroaryl {paragraphs [0045] and [0083]}. Where heteroaryl can be triazine {paragraphs [0042]-[0043]}.
Thompson teaches that the combination of emitter and host materials of Thompson suppresses the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter {paragraphs [0055]-[0057]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Thompson by replacing the fused ring group having the pi-electron deficient nitrogen atom with a triazine ring, based on the teaching of Thompson. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of triazine would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described substituents of Thompson), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional emitters in order to produce additional combinations of emitter and host materials of Thompson that suppress the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter, as taught by Thompson.
Regarding claims 16-17: Thompson teaches all of the features with respect to claim 9, as outlined above.
Thompson does not exemplify a compound in which the substituent comprising the pi-electron deficient nitrogen is instead a triazine group.
However, Thompson teaches that the emitter of Thompson can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0085]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where RD can be heteroaryl {paragraphs [0045] and [0083]}. Where heteroaryl can be triazine {paragraphs [0042]-[0043]}. This is exemplified by the substituent shown below {paragraph [0086] and p. 48}.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thompson teaches that the combination of emitter and host materials of Thompson suppresses the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter {paragraphs [0055]-[0057]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Thompson by replacing the fused ring group having the pi-electron deficient nitrogen atom with the triazine ring shown above, based on the teaching of Thompson. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of the triazine ring shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described substituents of Thompson), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional emitters in order to produce additional combinations of emitter and host materials of Thompson that suppress the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter, as taught by Thompson.
Regarding claim 20: Thompson teaches all of the features with respect to claim 9, as outlined above.
Thompson does not exemplify a compound having the structure of one of the instant Compounds 1 to 110.
However, the modified compound of Thompson described in paragraphs 21-28 above differs from Compound 36, in that the instant Compound 36 does not comprise a t-butyl substituent on the pyridine ring.
However, Thompson teaches that the emitter of Thompson can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0085]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where RF can be hydrogen {paragraph [0083]}.
Thompson teaches that the combination of emitter and host materials of Thompson suppresses the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter {paragraphs [0055]-[0057]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Thompson by replacing the t-butyl group on the pyridine ring with hydrogen, based on the teaching of Thompson. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of hydrogen would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described substituents of Thompson), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional emitters in order to produce additional combinations of emitter and host materials of Thompson that suppress the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter, as taught by Thompson.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2021/0305520 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6: Thompson discloses the compound shown below {p. 69}.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the circled nitrogen is pi-electron deficient.
Thompson does not disclose a specific organic light-emitting device comprising the compound shown above.
However, Thompson teaches that the compound shown above is useful as an emitter in the organic light emitting devices of Thompson {paragraph [0087] and [0091]-[0092]}.
Thompson teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer {paragraphs [0069]-[0075]}.
The emissive layer comprises a host material and a light emitting emitter {paragraphs [0069]-[0071] and [0075]}.
The interlayer additionally comprises a hole transport region {Fig. 1 and paragraph [0107]}. The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer {Fig. 1 and paragraph [0107]}.
The interlayer additionally comprises an electron transport region {Fig. 1 and paragraph [0107]}. The electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer {Fig. 1 and paragraph [0107]}.
Thompson teaches that the combination of emitter and host materials of Thompson suppresses the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter {paragraphs [0055]-[0057]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the compound of Thompson as the emitter of the emissive layer of the device of Thompson described above, based on the teaching of Thompson. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce devices with suppressed exciplex emissions, as taught by Thompson.
An organic light emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Regarding claim 5: Thompson teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Thompson does not exemplify a compound in which the substituent comprising the pi-electron deficient nitrogen is instead a triazine group.
However, Thompson teaches that the emitter of Thompson can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0085]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where RD can be heteroaryl {paragraphs [0045] and [0083]}. Where heteroaryl can be triazine {paragraphs [0042]-[0043]}. This is exemplified by the substituent shown below {paragraph [0086] and p. 48}.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thompson teaches that the combination of emitter and host materials of Thompson suppresses the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter {paragraphs [0055]-[0057]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Thompson by replacing the fused ring group having the pi-electron deficient nitrogen atom with the triazine ring shown above, based on the teaching of Thompson. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of the triazine ring shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described substituents of Thompson), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional emitters in order to produce additional combinations of emitter and host materials of Thompson that suppress the emissions from exciplex states such that emissions are primarily from the emitter, as taught by Thompson.
Thompson teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the modified compound of Thompson has a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to about 600 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the modified compound of Thompson having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to about 600 nm is inherent to Thompson. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The modified compound of Thompson described has a similar structure to the instant Compound 36. The instant Compound 36 emits light with a maximum emission wavelength of 461 nm {Table 2 of the instant specification}. The only difference is the presence of a tertiary butyl substituent on the pyridine ring of the instant Compound 36 that is not present on the modified compound of Thompson. Given the structural similarity, the modified compound of Thompson would have a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to about 600 nm.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Thompson product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2021/0305520 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 2009/0174311 A1) (hereafter “Patel”).
Regarding claim 4: Thompson teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Thompson does not specify the concentration of the emitter in the host material.
Hamada et al. as modified by Wu et al. and Igarashi et al. does not specify a dopant concentration within the specific range of 2% to 4% by weight.
Patel teaches a phosphorescent dopant concentration for a phosphorescent dopant into a host of 0.01 to 49% by weight {paragraph [0111]}.
Patel teaches that this range is useful so that electroluminescent efficiency is high, while luminescence quenching is prevented {paragraph [0111]; "If the concentration of the emissive species is too high, quenching of luminescence can occur. A concentration in the range 0.01-49 wt %, more preferably 0.5-10 wt %, most preferably 1-3 wt % is generally appropriate.”}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light-emitting device of Thompson such that the concentration of the phosphorescent dopant is between 0.01 to 49% by weight, based on the teaching of Patel. The motivation for doing so would have been to have high electroluminescent efficiency while preventing luminescence quenching, as taught by Patel.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2021/0305520 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 7: Thompson teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Thompson does not exemplify that the display device is a flat panel display or that the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor.
Kim ‘710 teaches flat panel display comprising organic light-emitting devices as the light-emitting elements {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0060]}.
The display comprises a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0039] [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode, Element 260 is the source electrode, and Element 220-3 is the active layer.}
The first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraph [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode and is in electrical contact with the electrode of the organic light-emitting device, Element 310.}.
Kim ‘710 sought to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield {abstract, paragraph [0019], and [0059]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Thompson by using the device as light-emitting elements of the flat panel display device of Kim ‘710, based on the teachings of Kim ‘710. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield, as taught by Kim ‘710.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2021/0305520 A1) (hereafter “Thompson”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”).
Regarding claim 8: Thompson teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Thompson does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Thompson is incorporated into a display device comprising a color filter.
Kim ‘985 teaches a display device comprising a substrate, and on the substrate, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, an organic light emitting device corresponding to each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0044]}. The display device additionally comprising a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions and disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode {paragraphs [0050]-[0052]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Thompson by including the device in the display device structure of Kim ‘985 described above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘985. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights