DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is unclear for a number of reasons. First, the use of “is selected from A or B” is ambiguous and should be corrected to, for example, “is A or B” or “is selected from A and B”. Second, the phrase “‘*’ in the structures of Formula 2, Formula 3, and Formula 4 represents a position where the benzene ring with the substituent R in Formula 1, Formula 2, Formula 3, or Formula 4 is joined” is confusing because it does not make it clear which two or more moieties are being joined. Perhaps the phrase should be amended to “‘*’ in the structures of Formula 2, Formula 3, and Formula 4 represents a position where Formula 2, Formula 3, or Formula 4 is connected to the benzene ring with the substituent R in Formula 1”. The same should be done for “*” and “#” in connection with Formulae 5-10. The other claims are indefinite for the same reasons and/or by dependency. In addition, claim 13 depends in claim 9 and recites that the light-emitting layer further comprises a second host compound, implying that the light-emitting layer has at least two host compounds. However, according to claim 9, the compound of claim 1 is not necessarily included, and functioning as a host compound, in the light-emitting layer. The scope of claim 13 is therefore unclear. Also, as a consequence, claim 18 depends on claim 13 and recites the metal complex and “the compound” in the light-emitting layer wherein the metal complex does not have an antecedent basis and “the compound” is not necessarily present in the light-emitting layer per claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/046523 A1 to Cho et al.
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al. discloses an OLED comprising the following compound as TADF emitter in the EML,
PNG
media_image1.png
192
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
which is exemplified by the following compound
PNG
media_image2.png
460
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see compound 4903 on page 27). This compound is representative of the claimed compound wherein one of Rx is cyano group, and claim 1 is therefore unpatentable. See MPEP § 2131.02(II). So are claims 2-4, 6 and 8. The features of claims 17 and 19 are disclosed at pages 30 and 32, respectively.
Claims 1-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3787056 A1 to Jeon et al.
Jeon et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises compound Y as an emitter,
PNG
media_image3.png
282
236
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see comparative example 4 on page 300). This compound is representative of the claimed compound. In fact, it is identical to the first compound in claim 7. Claims 1-8 are therefore anticipated. Since the compound is included in the EML that has two host materials, it is in the form of a composition and reads on claim 19.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/262861 A1 to Han et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation).
Han et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises a phosphorescent metal complex and the following host material:
PNG
media_image4.png
348
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which is exemplified by such species as
PNG
media_image5.png
266
278
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
This compound is representative of the claimed compound wherein one Rz is a heterocyclic group. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 2-4, 6, 8-9 and 19. An example of the phosphorescent metal complex is the following green light emitter
PNG
media_image6.png
270
234
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(p. 47). Claim 10 is therefore unpatentable. So are claim 11 (m = 0) and claim 17.
Claims 1-5 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3862351 A1 to Korai et al.
Regarding claim 1, Korai et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML, fabricated from a solution, comprises 3 host compounds and a dopant, wherein the 3 host compounds are W1, 2H-34 and compound 3, in a weight ratio of 3:3:7, and the dopant is D114 (dopant:host = 9:91) (see example 3 on page 103),
PNG
media_image7.png
186
242
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
168
254
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
190
266
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
192
210
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
The host compound 3 is representative of the claimed compound wherein t = 0 and R = substituted heterocyclic group. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 2-5 and 8-11, 13-16 and 18-19. The features of claim 12 are disclosed on pages 41+. The features of claim 17 are anticipated because Korai et al. discloses iridium complexes that are similar to the green light-emitting dopant disclosed by Han et al. (see the complexes on page 42).
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, 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.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/262861 A1 to Han et al.
Regarding claim 13, the device of claim 9 is disclosed by Han et al. as explained above. In the prior art device, the light-emitting layer can also include other host materials selected from a group that includes derivatives of naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrimidine, carbazole and dibenzofuran (p. 57 of the translation). While an example of a device comprising a light-emitting layer comprising, as the host materials, a combination of the feature compound and one of the additional host materials is not given, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to make and use such device without expecting any difficulty or negative consequences. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).-- Claim 18 is obvious because Han et al. discloses a dopant-to-host weight ratio of 15:85 in example 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/262861 A1 to Han et al. in view of US 2019/0280213 A1 to Adamovich et al.
Regarding claim 12, the device of claim 10 is disclosed by Han et al. as explained above. The reference fails to teach the metal complexes of claim 12. Nevertheless, as Adamovich et al discloses that the following two iridium complexes are functionally equivalent as green light emitters,
PNG
media_image11.png
290
260
media_image11.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image12.png
326
262
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(p. 21), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the device disclosed by Han et al. by using the green light-emitting iridium complexes disclosed by Adamovich et al. and expect a favorable outcome. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Note that the second compound cited above is identical to compound GD40 of claim 12.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733.
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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights