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). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-105076, filed on 06/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 06/27/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claims 1, 2, and 6, the claims require an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer and the light emitting layer comprises a first and second compound and a phosphorescent light-emitting substance. The first compound comprises a heteroaromatic ring skeleton and an aromatic hydrocarbon group and the lowest excited state of the first organic compound is locally distributed at the aromatic hydrocarbon group. The second compound comprises a bicarbazole skeleton and the lowest triplet excited level of the second compound is greater than or equal to 2.20 eV and lower than or equal to 2.65 eV. No limitations are given with regard to the phosphorescent light-emitting substance other than it is present.
While the instant specification provides some examples of a first compound (paragraph [0063]), second compound (paragraph [0072]), and phosphorescent light-emitting substance (paragraph [0075]), it is unclear whether Applicant is in possession of the full breadth of the claimed invention because only a narrow scope of the compounds encompassed by the independent claims have been presented.
For example, the instant first compound is described as having a heteroaromatic ring skeleton and an aromatic hydrocarbon group, wherein the lowest triplet excited state of the first compound is located at the aromatic hydrocarbon group. However, while Applicant gives examples of heteroaromatic ring skeletons in paragraph [0048] and examples of aromatic hydrocarbon groups in paragraph [0054], the vast majority of the 26 example compounds presented by applicant (paragraph [0064]) have a benzofuropyrimidine (23) group, and the remaining 3 examples are split between a benzothiopyrimidine (2 compounds) group and triazine (1 compound) group. Similarly, in embodiments of the claimed invention, Applicant has only presented data for 8mpTP-4mDBtPBfpm and its deuterated analogue, which both comprise a benzofuropyrimidine heteroaromatic group and terphenyl aromatic hydrocarbon group.
Thus, the limited examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii). Further, given the multitude of diverse structures that could give rise to this function and that the specification examples only represent a small fraction of all these diverse structures, the specification does not provide support for the breadth of the claims.
This same logic applies to the limitation of “aromatic hydrocarbon group” in claim 1.
Claims 3-5 and 7-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (WO 2019/229583 A1, using US 2021/0363151 A1 as an official translation and for references) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2015/0249221 A1) and Ito et al. (US 2015/0318487 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 9-13, Seo discloses Light-emitting element 14 (Table 9, page 66) which comprises a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and a light emitting layer between the electrodes and the light emitting layer comprises a first host material (8pmTP-4mDBtPBfpm), a second host material (PCCP), and a phosphorescent light-emitting substance (Ir(ppy)3), which are pictured below (page 67).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Seo also teaches that the first host material may be compound 128 (8mpTP-4mDBtPBfpm, page 23), which is pictured below and labeled with relevant functional groups.
PNG
media_image4.png
388
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Seo compound 128 is analogous to the instant first compound.
Seo also teaches that the carbazole compound of the light-emitting layer may be a bicarbazole derivative (paragraph 0023), and examples of bicarbazole compounds of the described composition include 9-(2-naphthyl)-9’-phenyl-9H, 9’H-3,3’-bicarbazole (ONCCP, paragraph 0152), which is pictured below, and labeled with relevant functional groups.
PNG
media_image5.png
245
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Seo compound ONCCP is analogous to the instant second compound.
However, Seo does not teach nor fairly suggest preferential selection of compound with a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent for the first compound.
In analogous art, Zeng discloses a host material for use in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device and the host material comprises a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent.
Zeng teaches that host compounds comprising a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent demonstrate enhanced stability compared to reference compounds which do not comprise a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent and that this is believed to be a result of improved electron/hole transport balances due to the unique chemical structure of the compounds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a compound of Seo which has a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent as the first host in the light emitting layer in order to obtain improved electron/hole transport balances, and enhanced stability compared to compounds which do not comprise a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent, as taught by Zeng.
However, neither Seo nor Zeng teach nor fairly suggest preferential selection of ONCCP for the second compound.
In analogous art, Ito teaches an organic light emitting device including an emission layer (abstract) and the organic layer comprises a biscarbazole wherein the triplet energy (ET1) of the biscarbazole derivative is greater than the triplet energy (ET2) of the dopant of the emission layer (paragraph 0023).
Ito teaches that when the biscarbazole derivative has a triplet energy of about 2.2 eV to about 3.8 eV, the organic light-emitting device may have low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime (paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any bicarbazole host material taught by Seo which has a lowest triplet exited level of about 2.2 eV to about 3.8 eV, such as ONCCP, with a reasonable expectation of achieving an organic light-emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime, as taught by Ito.
With respect to claims 2-5 and 15-17, Seo discloses Light-emitting element 14 (Table 9, page 66) which comprises a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and a light emitting layer between the electrodes and the light emitting layer comprises a first host material (8pmTP-4mDBtPBfpm), a second host material (PCCP), and a phosphorescent light-emitting substance (Ir(ppy)3), which are pictured below (page 67).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Seo also teaches that the first host material may be compound 128 (8mpTP-4mDBtPBfpm, page 23), which is pictured below and labeled with relevant functional groups.
PNG
media_image4.png
388
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Seo compound 128 is analogous to the instant first compound.
Seo also teaches that the carbazole compound of the light-emitting layer may be a bicarbazole derivative (paragraph 0023), and examples of bicarbazole compounds of the described composition include 9-(2-naphthyl)-9’-phenyl-9H, 9’H-3,3’-bicarbazole (ONCCP, paragraph 0152), which is pictured below, and labeled with relevant functional groups.
PNG
media_image5.png
245
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Seo compound ONCCP is analogous to the instant second compound.
However, Seo does not teach nor fairly suggest preferential selection of compound with a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent for the first compound.
In analogous art, Zeng discloses a host material for use in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device and the host material comprises a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent.
Zeng teaches that host compounds comprising a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent demonstrate enhanced stability compared to reference compounds which do not comprise a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent and that this is believed to be a result of improved electron/hole transport balances due to the unique chemical structure of the compounds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a compound of Seo which has a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent as the first host in the light emitting layer in order to obtain improved electron/hole transport balances, and enhanced stability compared to compounds which do not comprise a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent, as taught by Zeng.
However, neither Seo nor Zeng teach nor fairly suggest preferential selection of ONCCP for the second compound.
In analogous art, Ito teaches an organic light emitting device including an emission layer (abstract) and the organic layer comprises a biscarbazole wherein the triplet energy (ET1) of the biscarbazole derivative is greater than the triplet energy (ET2) of the dopant of the emission layer (paragraph 0023).
Ito teaches that when the biscarbazole derivative has a triplet energy of about 2.2 eV to about 3.8 eV, the organic light-emitting device may have low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime (paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any bicarbazole host material taught by Seo which has a lowest triplet exited level of about 2.2 eV to about 3.8 eV, such as ONCCP, with a reasonable expectation of achieving an organic light-emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime, as taught by Ito.
With respect to claim 14, Seo, Zeng, and Ito teach the device of claim 2, as discussed above.
However, neither Seo, Zeng, nor Ito teach that the lowest triplet excited level of the first compound is derived from only the substituent.
Examiner is interpreting the first compound, compound 128 of Seo or instant 8mpTP-4mDBtPDfpm, to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 121 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Seo reads on the claims.
Seo is silent to the lowest triplet excited level of the compound being a factor of the substituent. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the first compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Seo, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Seo was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claims 6-8 and 18-20, Seo discloses Light-emitting element 14 (Table 9, page 66) which comprises a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and a light emitting layer between the electrodes and the light emitting layer comprises a first host material (8pmTP-4mDBtPBfpm), a second host material (PCCP), and a phosphorescent light-emitting substance (Ir(ppy)3), which are pictured below (page 67).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
442
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Seo also teaches that the first host material may be compound 128 (8mpTP-4mDBtPBfpm, page 23), which is pictured below and labeled with relevant functional groups.
PNG
media_image4.png
388
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Seo compound 128 is analogous to the instant first compound.
Seo also teaches that the carbazole compound of the light-emitting layer may be a bicarbazole derivative (paragraph 0023), and examples of bicarbazole compounds of the described composition include 9-(2-naphthyl)-9’-phenyl-9H, 9’H-3,3’-bicarbazole (ONCCP, paragraph 0152), which is pictured below, and labeled with relevant functional groups.
PNG
media_image5.png
245
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Seo compound ONCCP is analogous to the instant second compound.
However, Seo does not teach nor fairly suggest preferential selection of compound with a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent for the first compound.
In analogous art, Zeng discloses a host material for use in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device and the host material comprises a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent.
Zeng teaches that host compounds comprising a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent demonstrate enhanced stability compared to reference compounds which do not comprise a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent and that this is believed to be a result of improved electron/hole transport balances due to the unique chemical structure of the compounds.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a compound of Seo which has a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent as the first host in the light emitting layer in order to obtain improved electron/hole transport balances, and enhanced stability compared to compounds which do not comprise a 1,1’:4’:1” terphenyl substituent, as taught by Zeng.
However, neither Seo nor Zeng teach nor fairly suggest preferential selection of ONCCP for the second compound.
In analogous art, Ito teaches an organic light emitting device including an emission layer (abstract) and the organic layer comprises a biscarbazole wherein the triplet energy (ET1) of the biscarbazole derivative is greater than the triplet energy (ET2) of the dopant of the emission layer (paragraph 0023).
Ito teaches that when the biscarbazole derivative has a triplet energy of about 2.2 eV to about 3.8 eV, the organic light-emitting device may have low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime (paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any bicarbazole host material taught by Seo which has a lowest triplet exited level of about 2.2 eV to about 3.8 eV, such as ONCCP, with a reasonable expectation of achieving an organic light-emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime, as taught by Ito.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tominaga et al. (JP 2008/135498 A) – teaches that condensed ring groups on bicarbazole compounds have improved carrier transportability, high efficiency energy transfer to triplet dopants, and low driving voltage (paragraph 0033).
Gao et al. (US 2020/0203631 A1) – teaches the combination of bicarbazole host materials and relevant iridium complexes.
Ma et al. (US 8,946,697 B1) – teaches relevant iridium complexes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights