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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. 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 language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “Embodiments provide” should be deleted. The number 3 on the word “compound3” should be deleted. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The subscripts are not clear on compounds structures from m-a8 to m-a19 on page 86.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zink et al. (WO 2021/213972 A1) in view of Cho et al. (EP 3800681 A1).
Regarding claims 1-15, Zink et al. teach a light emitting device (OLED; page 1, lines 1-5; see abstract, claims and examples) teach a first electrode ( anode) ; a second electrode facing the first electrode ( cathode); and an emission layer EML ( page 17) disposed between the first and second electrodes ( see claim 14 and page 17, lines 5-47), wherein the emission layer EML comprises a first compound represented by formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
255
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
( see compound of formula 1 in claim 1 of Zink et al. :
PNG
media_image2.png
224
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, more specifically formula (1-1) or (1-2) on page 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
240
651
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Y1 and Y2 are t-butyl and phenyl group, n and m =2, a through g=0, and Rx1 is carbazole, which is optionally substituted with one or more substituents independently selected from the group consisting of tBu and Ph (see page 9,lines 2-5) meeting the limitation formula 1 as instantly claimed). Zink et al. teach the emission layer emits delayed fluorescence ( see page 16,lines 6-10). Zink et al. also teach the emission layer emits light having a central wavelength in a range of from 400 nm to 800 nm on page 16, lines 14-17 encompassing the instant claimed range of about 430 to about 470 nm. Furthermore, Zink et al. specifically teach the following compounds
PNG
media_image4.png
490
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on page 38 or compounds
PNG
media_image5.png
499
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on page 45 meeting the limitation of formulas 1-1 , is represented by at least one of Formula 1-2-1 to 1-2-7, Formula 1-3 and at least one compound selected from Compound Group I e.g. compound 82:
PNG
media_image6.png
244
323
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as recited by instant claims 6-15.
Further regards to claims 1 , 4 and 5, Zink et al. do not explicitly recite the emission layer comprises at least one of a second compound represented by Formula 2, a third compound represented by formula 3, and a fourth compound represented by formula 4 as instantly claimed by claim 1 or the emission layer comprises the first compound, the second compound, the third compound as recited by instant claim 4 or comprises the first compound, the second compound, the third compound and the fourth compound as recited by instant claim 5. However, Zink et al. recognize that emission layer (EML) layer on page 20 comprises one light emitting organic molecule represented by formula I above and mixed-host system and host compound that is a carbazole compound. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Cho et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of light emitting device ( OLED; see abstract, claims and examples) comprising an emission layer that may emit blue delayed fluorescence light [0777] to include at least one of a second compound represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image7.png
230
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
( See Formula 1
PNG
media_image8.png
203
552
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein X11 is N(R19) is R19 is represented by –(L11)a11- A11 [0025-0026] meeting the limitation of formula 2); a third compound represented by formula 3:
PNG
media_image9.png
193
321
media_image9.png
Greyscale
( see formula 10
PNG
media_image10.png
299
504
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[0025-0026] wherein Z1 to Z3 is represented by N meeting the limitation of Formula 3 as instantly claimed) , and a fourth compound represented by formula 4:
PNG
media_image11.png
334
394
media_image11.png
Greyscale
( see PT1 to PT8 in Group III-2 on page 92:
PNG
media_image12.png
416
576
media_image12.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 4 as recited by the instant claims). Zink et al. and Cho et al. are analogous art in the field of OLED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the light-emitting device of Zink et al. to include one of a second compound represented by Formula 2, a third compound represented by formula 3, and a fourth compound represented by formula 4 as taught by Cho et al. in view of aiding in improving the luminescent efficiency.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zink et al. (WO 2021/213972 A1) in view of Cho et al. (EP 3800681 A1)
Regarding claims 16-20, Zink et al. teach a light emitting device (OLED; page 1, lines 1-5; see abstract, claims and examples) teach a first electrode ( anode) ; a hold transport region disposed on the first electrode; an electron transport region disposed on the emission layer, a second electrode facing the first electrode ( cathode); and an emission layer EML ( page 17) disposed on the hole transport region ( see page 17, lines 5-47), wherein the emission layer EML comprises a first compound represented by formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
255
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
( see compound of formula 1 in claim 1 of Zink et al. :
PNG
media_image2.png
224
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, more specifically formula (1-1) or (1-2) on page 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
240
651
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Y1 and Y2 are t-butyl and phenyl group, n and m =2, a through g=0, and Rx1 is carbazole, which is optionally substituted with one or more substituents independently selected from the group consisting of tBu and Ph (see page 9,lines 2-5) meeting the limitation formula 1 as instantly claimed). Furthermore, Zink et al. specifically teach the following compounds
PNG
media_image4.png
490
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on page 38 or compounds
PNG
media_image5.png
499
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on page 45 meeting the limitation of formulas 1-1 , is represented by at least one of Formula 1-2-1 to 1-2-7, Formula 1-3 and at least one compound selected from Compound Group I e.g. compound 82:
PNG
media_image6.png
244
323
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as recited by instant claims 17-20.
Further regards to claim 16, Zink et al. do not explicitly recite the emission layer comprises at least one of a second compound represented by Formula 2, a third compound represented by formula 3, and a fourth compound represented by formula 4 as instantly claimed by claim 16. However, Zink et al. recognize that emission layer (EML) layer on page 20 comprises one light emitting organic molecule represented by formula I above and mixed-host system and host compound that is a carbazole compound. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Cho et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of light emitting device (OLED; see abstract, claims and examples) comprising an emission layer that may emit blue delayed fluorescence light [0777] to include at least one of a second compound represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image7.png
230
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
( See Formula 1
PNG
media_image8.png
203
552
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein X11 is N(R19) is R19 is represented by –(L11)a11- A11 [0025-0026] meeting the limitation of formula 2); a third compound represented by formula 3:
PNG
media_image9.png
193
321
media_image9.png
Greyscale
( see formula 10
PNG
media_image10.png
299
504
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[0025-0026] wherein Z1 to Z3 is represented by N meeting the limitation of Formula 3 as instantly claimed) , and a fourth compound represented by formula 4:
PNG
media_image11.png
334
394
media_image11.png
Greyscale
( see PT1 to PT8 in Group III-2 on page 92:
PNG
media_image12.png
416
576
media_image12.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 4 as recited by the instant claims). Zink et al. and Cho et al. are analogous art in the field of OLED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the light-emitting device of Zink et al. to include one of a second compound represented by Formula 2, a third compound represented by formula 3, and a fourth compound represented by formula 4 as taught by Cho et al. in view of aiding in improving the luminescent efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737