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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to. The limitation “including a compound of an anthracene core” would be clearer is amended to “including a compound which comprises an anthracene group”.
Claim 8 is objected to. The limitation “R4 is hydrogen, R6 is hydrogen or a phenyl ring” should be amended to “R4 is hydrogen, and R6 is hydrogen or a phenyl ring”.
Claim 9 is objected to. The limitation “wherein Formula 1 is given by:” is awkward and should be amended to “wherein the first host represented by Formula 1 is selected from”. Additionally, Applicants should remove “,or” as found between NCH-23 and NCH-24 and insert “, and” between NCH-25 and NCH-26.
Claim 9 is further objected to. Compounds NCH-01 and NCH-02 are the same; compounds NCH-04 and NCH-05 are the same; compounds NCH-07 and NCH-08 are the same; compounds NCH-09 and NCH-10 are the same; compounds NCH-11 and NCH-12 are the same; compounds NCH-15 and NCH-16 are the same; compounds NCH-17 and NCH-18 are the same; compounds NCH-19 and NCH-20 are the same; compounds NCH-21 and NCH-22 are the same; compounds NCH-23 and NCH-24 are the same; and compounds NCH-25 and NCH-26 are the same. Applicants should remove all compound redundancies from claim 9.
Claim 10 is objected to. The limitation “wherein Formula 2 is given by:” is awkward and should be amended to “wherein the second host is selected from”. Additionally, Applicants should remove “,or” as found between PD-33 and PD-34 and insert “, and” between PD-35 and PD-36.
Claim 18 is objected to. The limitation “wherein Formula 1 is given by:” is awkward and should be amended to “wherein the first host represented by Formula 1 is selected from”. Additionally, Applicants should remove “,or” as found between NCH-23 and NCH-24 and insert “, and” between NCH-25 and NCH-26.
Claim 18 is further objected to. Compounds NCH-01 and NCH-02 are the same; compounds NCH-04 and NCH-05 are the same; compounds NCH-07 and NCH-08 are the same; compounds NCH-09 and NCH-10 are the same; compounds NCH-11 and NCH-12 are the same; compounds NCH-15 and NCH-16 are the same; compounds NCH-17 and NCH-18 are the same; compounds NCH-19 and NCH-20 are the same; compounds NCH-21 and NCH-22 are the same; compounds NCH-23 and NCH-24 are the same; and compounds NCH-25 and NCH-26 are the same. Applicants should remove all compound redundancies from claim 18.
Claim 19 is objected to. The limitation “wherein Formula 2 is given by:” is awkward and should be amended to “wherein the second host is selected from”. Additionally, Applicants should remove “,or” as found between PD-33 and PD-34 and insert “, and” between PD-35 and PD-36.
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.
Claims 2 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Each of claims 2 and 11 recite the limitation “and the substituent is each independently one of hydrogen and deuterium”. This portion of the claim is presumably meant to further limit the terms “substituted or unsubstituted” which appear in the Markush description of Formula 2. However, a substituent is known in the art as an atom or group that replaces one or more hydrogen atoms on a parent molecule Deuterium is also not generally classified as a substituent in organic chemistry as deuterium is a hydrogen atom with an extra neutron. By including hydrogen and deuterium as the only claimed substituents, it raises the question why the Markush group includes the term “substituted or unsubstituted” as the only possible choices are hydrogen and deuterium. The metes and bounds of these claims are unclear since there is a question as to whether or not other substituents are meant to fall under the scope of these claims. Claims 12-19 are included in this rejection as they are dependent on claim 11.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation “the hole transport layer” in line 3 which does not have proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Claim 8 recited that each of R2, R3, and R4 are hydrogen, and R6 is hydrogen or a phenyl ring. However, claim 8 fails to further limit claim 1, which does not permit any one of R2-R4 and R6 to be hydrogen. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. All of the compounds recited in claims 9 and 18, fail to further limit claims 1 and 11, respectively. As claimed, Formula 1 in each of independent claims 1 and 11 require all of R1 to R6 to be selected from the group consisting of a cycloalkyl group, an aryl group, and a heteroaryl group. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 9 and 18 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Specifically, compounds NCH-17 through NCH-24 do not include an L group selected from quinazoline and pyrimidine as required by independent claims 1 and 11, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 9 and 18 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Specifically, compounds NCH-1 through NCH-24 do not include an R6 group which is selected from a cycloalkyl group, an aryl group, or a heteroaryl group as required by independent claims 1 and 11, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 20 are allowed. Independent claim 1 is drawn to an organic light-emitting device comprising at least two light-emitting stacks with an electron generation layer (also known as an n-type charge generation layer) and a hole generation layer (also known as a p-type charge generation layer). The electron generation layer is required to be comprised of a compound represented by Formula 1 and a metal dopant. Formula 1 is drawn to a compound which is required to have a quinazoline or a pyrimidine group as L, triphenylphosphine oxide as R7, and all of R1-R6 to be a cycloalkyl group, an aryl group, or a heteroaryl group. The prior art does not teach or suggest compounds which satisfy Formula 1. Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 10 and 20 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Additionally, all rejected claims above are free of any prior art rejections. Should Applicants overcome the 112(b) rejection to claims 2 and 11-19 above, claim 2 would be allowable as it is dependent on claim 1, and 11-17 would allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. Should Applicants overcome the 112(b) rejection to claim 6, claim 6 would be allowable as it is dependent on claim 1.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form. The closest prior art regarding the electron generation layer material comprising a compound of Formula 1 is La et al. (US 2020/0131133). La et al. teaches 952 specific compounds which may be employed in an n-type charge generation layer. Out of the 952 compounds, only three compounds, specifically compounds 382, 490, and 598, satisfy the limitations of claim 8. However, La et al. does not explicitly teach a metal dopant which must also be present in the n-type charge generation layer. La et al. also does not explicitly teach a p-type charge generation layer comprising a host and an organic dopant. The device examples taught by La et al. employ Cs2CO3 as the dopant in the n-type charge generation layer, which is not a metal dopant; further, the devices taught by La et al. do not include any p-type charge generation layer. None of the compounds taught in claim 9 are taught or suggested by La et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766