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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite ““at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the phrase “at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite ““at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite ““at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite ““at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 28 recites the phrase “at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite ““at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, or Z3”. 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.
Claims 18-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by over Ukigai et al (US 2023/0145235).
Regarding claim 18, Ukigai et al discloses the following compound (Abstract and Page 43 – Compound 3-8):
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
n1 and n2 are zero (0);
n3 is one (1); and
n1 + n2 + n3 is one (1).
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 60 – Compound 5-3):
PNG
media_image3.png
304
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA and CyC, are C6 aryl groups;
CyB is a C18 heteroaryl group;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
n1 is zero (0);
n3 is one (1); n2 is three (3); and
n1 + n2 + n3 is four (4).
Regarding claim 19, Ukigai et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compounds correspond to Formulas 1-1 and 1-2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
298
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
where:
X3 and X4 are NR1, and R1 is a C6 aryl;
n12 and n22 are zero (0);
n32 is (1); and
n12 + n22 + n32 is two (2).
Regarding claim 20, Ukigai et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
218
260
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a and R1b are unsubstituted C6 aryls.
Regarding claim 21, Ukigai et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image7.png
268
268
media_image7.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
186
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
where FG is the nitrogen containing polycyclic group and Z11 and Z21 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 23, Ukigai et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
210
384
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-2a of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
308
426
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a, R1b, R1c and R1d are unsubstituted C6 aryls.
Regarding claim 24, Ukigai et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
210
384
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-2d of the claims:
PNG
media_image11.png
200
338
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where FG corresponds to the carbazole group, i.e. the nitrogen containing polycyclic group; and Z12 and Z23 are hydrogen.
In light of the above, it is clear that Ukigai et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
Claims 1-2, 4, 14-15, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al (US 2015/0236274).
Regarding claim 1, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image12.png
353
587
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 corresponds to the recited first electrode; layer 108 corresponds to the recited second electrode; and layer 105 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer ([0104]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Page 181 – Table 2 – Example 4 – Compound 1-81 and Page 137 0 Synthesis Example 10):
PNG
media_image13.png
319
236
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the first compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are O;
n1 and n2 are zero (0);
n3 is one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 is one (1); and
Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group comprising 12 carbon atoms and four (4) bridgehead carbon atoms.
The light emitting further comprises the compound CBP, i.e.
PNG
media_image14.png
324
399
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound encompassed by Formula HT-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image15.png
128
240
media_image15.png
Greyscale
where a4 is eight (8); R10 is hydrogen; and R9 is a substituted aryl group with 6 ring carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 2, Hatakeyama et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
319
236
media_image13.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula 1-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 4, Hatakeyama et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
319
236
media_image13.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
186
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
where FG is the nitrogen containing heterocyclic group.
Regarding claim 14, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following organic light emitting device , i.e. a light emitting element (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image12.png
353
587
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 corresponds to the recited first electrode; layer 108 corresponds to the recited second electrode; and layer 105 corresponds to the recited functional layer ([0104]). The light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Page 181 – Table 2 – Example 4 – Compound 1-81 and Page 137 0 Synthesis Example 10):
PNG
media_image13.png
319
236
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are O;
n1 and n2 are zero (0);
n3 is one (1); \
n1 + n2 + n3 is one (1); and
Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group comprising 12 carbon atoms and four (4) bridgehead carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 15, Hatakeyama et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device
PNG
media_image12.png
353
587
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
which comprises: a light emitting layer (105); hole transport layer (104), between the first electrode (102) and the emission layer (105); and an electron transport layer (106) between the light emitting layer (105) and the second electrode (108). As discussed above, the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 18, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound (Page 181 – Table 2 – Example 4 – Compound 1-81 and Page 137 0 Synthesis Example 10):
PNG
media_image13.png
319
236
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are O;
n1 and n2 are zero (0);
n3 is one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 is one (1); and
Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group comprising 12 carbon atoms and four (4) bridgehead carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 19, Hatakeyama et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
319
236
media_image13.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula 1-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 21, Hatakeyama et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound:
PNG
media_image13.png
319
236
media_image13.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
186
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where FG is the nitrogen containing heterocyclic group.
In light of the above, it is clear that Hatakeyama et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
Claims 18-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by over Fleetham et al (US 2022/0149294).
Regarding claim 18, Fleetham et al discloses the following compound (Page 8):
PNG
media_image16.png
442
418
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC, are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is a substituted C6 aryl;
n1, n2 and n3 are one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 is four (4);
Z1 and Z2 are unsubstituted C4 alkyl groups; and
Z3 is a carbazole group, i.e. a nitrogen-containing polycyclic groups having 12 carbon atoms and comprising four (4) bridgehead carbon atoms.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 10):
PNG
media_image17.png
342
682
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA and CyC, are C6 aryl groups;
CyB is a C18 heteroaryl group;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
n1 is zero (0);
n3 is one (1);
n2 is three (3);
n1 + n2 + n3 is four (4); and
one Z1 and one Z2 are carbazole groups, i.e. nitrogen-containing polycyclic groups having 12 ring carbon atoms and comprising four (4) bridgehead carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 19, Fleetham et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image16.png
442
418
media_image16.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formulas 1-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image18.png
207
274
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where n11 and n21 are two (2); n31 is one (1); and n11 + n21 + n31 is three (3).
Furthermore, the compound:
PNG
media_image19.png
192
398
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image20.png
190
278
media_image20.png
Greyscale
,
where X3 and X4 are NR1, and R1 is a C6 aryl; n12 is zero (0); n22 and n32 are both (1); and n12 + n22 + n32 is two (2).
Regarding claim 20, Fleetham et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image16.png
442
418
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image21.png
212
268
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a and R1b are substituted C6 aryl groups.
Regarding claim 21, Fleetham et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image16.png
442
418
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image22.png
190
244
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where FG is the nitrogen containing polycyclic group; Z11 and Z21 are unsubstituted C4 alkyl groups; and n11 and n21 ae both one (1).
Regarding claim 23, Fleetham et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image19.png
192
398
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-2a of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
308
426
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R1b and R1d are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups; R1a and R1c are substituted C6 aryl groups.
Regarding claim 24, Fleetham et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image19.png
192
398
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-2d of the claims:
PNG
media_image23.png
192
348
media_image23.png
Greyscale
,
where FG is the nitrogen containing polycyclic group; and Z12 and Z12 are hydrogen;
.
In light of the above, it is clear that Fleetham et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 2015/0236274) in view of Ahn et al (EP 3544076).
The discussion with respect to Hatakeyama et al as set forth in Paragraph 9 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the emission layer can comprise a combination of host and dopant compounds, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises the second and third compounds as required by the present claims.
Ahn et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises a second compound and third compound (Abstract). The second compound is exemplified as (Page 57 – Compound ET27):
PNG
media_image24.png
266
308
media_image24.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited third compound represented by Formula ET-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image25.png
176
236
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y3 are N;
b1 to b3 are one (1);
L1 and L2 are direct linkages;
L3 is a C6 arylene group;
Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted C10 aryl groups; and
Ar3 is an unsubstituted C9 heteroaryl group.
The third compound is exemplified as (Page 40 – Compound H3-1):
PNG
media_image26.png
132
216
media_image26.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound encompassed by Formula HT-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image15.png
128
240
media_image15.png
Greyscale
where a4 is eight (8); R10 is hydrogen; and R9 is a substituted C6 aryl group.
The reference discloses that an organic light emitting device comprising these compound possess high luminescent efficiency and a long lifespan ([0004]).
Given that both Hatakeyama et al and Ahn et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising dopant and host compounds in the light emitting layer, and given that Hatakeyama et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compounds as taught by An et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Hatakeyama et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the emission layer can comprise a combination of host and dopant compounds, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises the second, third compounds, and fourth as required by the present claims.
Ahn et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound (Abstract). The first compound is exemplified as ([0067] – compound D4):
PNG
media_image27.png
184
304
media_image27.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited fourth compound represented by Formula M-b:
PNG
media_image28.png
376
378
media_image28.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Q1 is N;
Q2 is N;
Q3 is C;
Q4 is C;
C1 is a C5 heteroaryl group;
C2 and C3 are C12 heteroaryl groups;
C4 is a C5 heteroaryl group;
e1 to e3 are one (1);
e4 is zero (0);
L21 is a direct linkage;
L22 and L23 are -O-; and
d1 to d4 are zero (0).
The second compound is exemplified as (Page 57 – Compound ET27):
PNG
media_image24.png
266
308
media_image24.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited third compound represented by Formula ET-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image25.png
176
236
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y3 are N;
b1 to b3 are one (1);
L1 and L2 are direct linkages;
L3 is a C6 arylene group;
Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted C10 aryl groups; and
Ar3 is an unsubstituted C9 heteroaryl group.
The third compound is exemplified as (Page 40 – Compound H3-1):
PNG
media_image26.png
132
216
media_image26.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound encompassed by Formula HT-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image15.png
128
240
media_image15.png
Greyscale
where a4 is eight (8); R10 is hydrogen; and R9 is a substituted C6 aryl group.
The reference discloses that an organic light emitting device comprising these compound possess high luminescent efficiency and a long lifespan ([0004]).
Given that both Hatakeyama et al and Ahn et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising dopant and host compounds in the light emitting layer, and given that Hatakeyama et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compounds as taught by An et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Hatakeyama et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukigai et al (US 2023/0145235).
Regarding claim 1, Ukigai et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image29.png
306
659
media_image29.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (2) corresponds to the recited first electrode ([0108]); the cathode (7) corresponds to the recited second electrode ([0108]); and layer 5 is the recited light emitting layer ([0108]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Abstract and Page 43 – Compound 3-8):
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the first compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
n1 and n2 are zero (0);
n3 is one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 is one (1); and
Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group comprising 12 carbon atoms and four (4) bridgehead carbon atoms.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 60 – Compound 5-3):
PNG
media_image3.png
304
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA and CyC, are C6 aryl groups;
CyB is a C24 heteroaryl group;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
n1 is zero (0);
n3 and n2 are both one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 is two (2); and
Z2 and Z3 are nitrogen containing polycyclic groups comprising 12 carbon atoms and four (4) bridgehead carbon atoms.
The light emitting further comprises the compound (Abstract, [0064], and Page 25 – Compound 2-1):
PNG
media_image30.png
279
310
media_image30.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited third compound represented by Formula ET-1:
PNG
media_image25.png
176
236
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y3 are N;
b1 to b3 are one (1);
L1 to L3 are direct linkages;
Ar1 and Ar3 are unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl groups; and
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed light emitting element nor can the claimed light emitting element be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed light emitting element and the light emitting element disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed light emitting element, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compounds disclosed by the reference in the light emitting element, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Ukigai et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1 or 1-2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
298
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, Ukigai et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
218
260
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 4, Ukigai et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image31.png
182
238
media_image31.png
Greyscale
,
where FG corresponds to the carbazole group, i.e. the nitrogen containing polycyclic group.
Regarding claim 5, Ukigai et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image32.png
200
382
media_image32.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-2a of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
308
426
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a, R1b, R1c and R1d are unsubstituted C6 aryls.
Regarding claim 6, Ukigai et al discloses teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound:
PNG
media_image32.png
200
382
media_image32.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Formula 1-2d of the claims:
PNG
media_image11.png
200
338
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where FG corresponds to the carbazole group, i.e. the nitrogen containing polycyclic group.
Regarding claim 13, Ukigai et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above the reference discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image30.png
279
310
media_image30.png
Greyscale
corresponding to Compound ET1 of the present claims.
Regarding claim 14, Ukigai et al discloses the following organic light emitting device, i.e. a light emitting element (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image29.png
306
659
media_image29.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (2) corresponds to the recited first electrode ([0108]); the cathode (7) corresponds to the recited second electrode ([0108]); and layers 3 to layer 5 correspond to the recited functional layer ([0108]).
The light emitting layer (5) comprises the following compound (Abstract and Page 43 – Compound 3-8):
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the first compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
n1 and n2 are zero (0);
n3 is one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 is one (1).
Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group comprising 12 carbon atoms and four (4) bridgehead carbon atoms.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 60 – Compound 5-3):
PNG
media_image3.png
304
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA and CyC, are C6 aryl groups;
CyB is a C24 heteroaryl group;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
n1 is zero (0);
n3 and n2 are both one (1);
n1 + n2 + n3 is two (2); and
Z2 and Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group comprising 12 carbon atoms and four bridgehead atoms.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed light emitting element nor can the claimed light emitting element be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed light emitting element and the light emitting element disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed light emitting element, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compounds disclosed by the reference in the light emitting element, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Ukigai et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above the reference discloses the following device:
PNG
media_image29.png
306
659
media_image29.png
Greyscale
,
which comprises: an emission layer (5); a hole transport layer (6) and hole injection layer (3), i.e. a hole transport region; and an electron transport layer (6), i.e. an electron transport region. The electron transport layer (6) is between the emission layer (5) and the second electrode (6); and the hole transport (4) and hole injection (3) layers are between the emission layer (5) and the first electrode (2).
Regarding claim 16, Ukigai et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compounds correspond to Formulas 1-1 and 1-2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
298
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12, 14-22, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 2020/0335705) in view of Takada et al (US 2019/0097157).
Regarding claim 1, Song et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer comprising a light emitting layer disposed between the first and second electrodes (Abstract).
One or more layers of the organic material layer comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0049] – Compound 1-1):
PNG
media_image33.png
326
352
media_image33.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound encompassed by Formula HT-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image15.png
128
240
media_image15.png
Greyscale
where a4 is eight (8); R10 is hydrogen; and R9 is a substituted C6 aryl group. Given that the reference discloses that one or more layers of the organic material layer comprise the disclosed compound, it is clear that the light emitting layer can comprise the above compound.
The light emitter layer further comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0050], and Page 72 Compound 2-1):
PNG
media_image34.png
301
382
media_image34.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited first compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
Z1, Z2, and Z3 are hydrogen;
n1, n2, and n3 are zero (0); and
n1 + n2 + n3 is zero (0).
While the reference discloses a general formula for the compound ([0012])- General Formula 2):
PNG
media_image35.png
228
254
media_image35.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 to R12 can be a heteroalkyl ([0016]), the reference does not disclose that Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group as recited in the present claim.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Song et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Song et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the heteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
218
260
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
186
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where FG corresponds to the carbazole group, i.e. the nitrogen containing polycyclic group.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Takada et al discloses the poly cyclic group:
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is hydrogen, corresponding to Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Takada et al discloses the poly cyclic group:
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is hydrogen, corresponding to Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Song et al discloses that formula:
PNG
media_image35.png
228
254
media_image35.png
Greyscale
,
R3 to R12 can be deuterium ([0016]).
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosure of Song et al and Takada et al teach compound 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image37.png
198
188
media_image37.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Song et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer comprising a light emitting layer, i.e. a functional layer, disposed between the first and second electrodes (Abstract). The light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0050], and Page 72 Compound 2-1):
PNG
media_image34.png
301
382
media_image34.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited first compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
Z1, Z2, and Z3 are hydrogen; n1, n2, and n3 are zero (0); and
n1 + n2 + n3 is zero (0).
While the reference discloses a general formula for the compound ([0012])- General Formula 2):
PNG
media_image35.png
228
254
media_image35.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 to R12 can be a heteroalkyl ([0016]), the reference does not disclose that Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group as recited in the present claim.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Song et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Song et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the heteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Song et al discloses the organic light emitting device as ([0059] – Figure 1):
PNG
media_image38.png
252
671
media_image38.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises: a light emitting layer (133); a hole transport layer (132) and hole injection layer (131), i.e. a hole transport region; and an electron transport layer (134), i.e. an electron transport region. The electron transport layer (134) is between the light emitting layer (133) and the cathode (120); and the hole transport (132) and hole injection (131) layers are between the light emitting layer (133) and the anode (110).
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
218
260
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Takada et al discloses the poly cyclic group:
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is hydrogen, corresponding to Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 18, Song et al the following compound (Abstract, [0050], and Page 72 Compound 2-1):
PNG
media_image34.png
301
382
media_image34.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited first compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
CyA, CyB, and CyC are C6 aryl groups;
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
Z1, Z2, and Z3 are hydrogen;
n1, n2, and n3 are zero (0); and
n1 + n2 + n3 is zero (0).
While the reference discloses a general formula for the compound ([0012])- General Formula 2):
PNG
media_image35.png
228
254
media_image35.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 to R12 can be a heteroalkyl ([0016]), the reference does not disclose that Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group as recited in the present claim.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Song et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Song et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the heteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
218
260
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
186
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where FB corresponds to the nitrogen containing polycyclic group..
Regarding claim 22, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Takada discloses:
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen. Accordingly, FG in the compound corresponds to azaadamantane
Regarding claim 26, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Takada et al discloses the poly cyclic group:
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is hydrogen, corresponding to Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 27, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Takada et al discloses the poly cyclic group:
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is hydrogen, corresponding to Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 28, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Song et al discloses that formula:
PNG
media_image35.png
228
254
media_image35.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 to R12 can be deuterium ([0016]).
Regarding claim 29, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosure of Song et al and Takada et al teach compound 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image37.png
198
188
media_image37.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al (US 2022/0149294) in view of Takada et al (US 2019/0097157).
The discussion with respect to Fleetham et al as set forth in Paragraph 10 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 22, Fleetham et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
and while the reference discloses a general compound for the compound ([0079]):
PNG
media_image39.png
208
198
media_image39.png
Greyscale
,
where RC, corresponding to FG of the present claims, can be a heterocycloalkyl ([0077]), the reference does not disclose that FG is an azaadamantane as required by the present claims
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Fleetham et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Fleetham et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the cycloheteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, Fleetham et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image17.png
342
682
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
and while the reference discloses a general formula for the compound (Page 7):
PNG
media_image40.png
230
356
media_image40.png
Greyscale
,
where RC and RD, corresponding to FG in the present claims, can be heterocycloalkyl ([0086]), the reference does not disclose that Z3 is a nitrogen containing polycyclic group as recited in the present claim.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Fleetham et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Fleetham et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the cycloheteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26, Fleetham et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
and while the reference discloses a general compound for the reference ([0079]):
PNG
media_image39.png
208
198
media_image39.png
Greyscale
,
where RC, corresponding to FG of the present claims, can be a heterocycloalkyl ([0077]), the reference does not disclose that the heterocycloalkyl corresponds to Formula 2-1 of the claims
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Fleetham et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Fleetham et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the cycloheteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 27, Fleetham et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
and while the reference discloses a general compound for the reference ([0079]):
PNG
media_image39.png
208
198
media_image39.png
Greyscale
,
where RC, corresponding to FG of the present claims, can be a heterocycloalkyl ([0077]), the reference does not disclose that the heterocycloalkyl corresponds to Formula 2-1 of the claims
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image36.png
154
152
media_image36.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Fleetham et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Fleetham et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the cycloheteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786