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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification lacks antecedent basis for at least the subject matter recited in claims 5, 12, 17, and 21-22.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, it is suggested to deleted the comma after "device" and before "comprising" in the preamble for ease of reading; and
in claim 24, it is suggested to deleted the comma after "composition" and before "comprising" in the preamble for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 7-1, 14-16, 19-20, and 22-23 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.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-16, 19-20, and 22, the claimed recite limitations after "preferably." The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Further, the limitations after "preferably" are a narrower scope than before. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, each of claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-16, 19-20, and 22 recites a broad recitation, and the claims also recite a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as only requiring the broader limitation in each of claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-16, 19-20, and 22.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites La1 to La110; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the structure of La1 to La110 is required to be.
For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted such that La1 to La110 have the structures in claim 17.
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.
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 1-12, 18-21,and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. WO-2022086296-A1 (hereinafter "Kim-WO" and please see English language machine translation referred to herein "Kim-MT").
It is noted that WO-2022086296-A1 is a family member of KR-2022053508-A cited on the IDS of 07/28/2023.
Regarding claims 1-12, 18-21, and 23-24, Kim teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer between an anode and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound represented by a formula (1) and a compound represented by a formula (2) (Kim-MT, page 2 of 81, lines 6-9), as hosts (Kim-MT, page 6 of 81, lines 17-20). Kim teaches the emitting layer comprises a dopant (Kim-MT, page 6 of 81, lines 16-18) and that, while the dopant is not particularly limited, Kim teaches examples on pages 168-170. Kim teaches examples of the compound of formula (1) on pages 9-142 including
PNG
media_image1.png
142
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 130). Kim teaches examples of the compound of formula (2) on pages 146-166 including
PNG
media_image2.png
138
145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 165). Kim teaches the device has organic light emitting device has the beneficial properties of excellent driving voltage, efficiency, and lifetime (Kim-MT, page 3 of 81, lines 8-9).
Kim does not specifically exemplify a device wherein the Kim's compound of formula (1) is specifically one of the compounds that meets the claimed Formula 1 and Kim's compound of formula (2) is specifically one of the compounds that meets the claimed Formula 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Kim's compound of formula (1) and Kim's compound of formula (2) from any of the compounds discussed above, because it would have been choosing from the list of specifically exemplified compounds of Kim, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as hosts in the light emitting layer of the device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising a compound of Kim's formula (1) and a compound of Kim's formula (2) having the beneficial properties taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The compound of formula (1) of Kim meets the claimed Formula 1 and the compound
PNG
media_image1.png
142
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
corresponds to the claimed compound B-1.
The compound of formula (2) of Kim meets the claimed Formula 2 and the compound
PNG
media_image2.png
138
145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
corresponds to the claimed compound A-1.
The dopant compound of Kim meets the claimed Formula 3.
Therefore, the modified device of Kim meets claims 1-12, 18-21, and 23-24.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. WO-2022086296-A1 (hereinafter "Kim-WO" and please see English language machine translation referred to herein "Kim-MT") and Boudreault et al. US-20200227659-A1 (hereinafter "Boudreault").
It is noted that WO-2022086296-A1 is a family member of KR-2022053508-A cited on the IDS of 07/28/2023.
Regarding claims 1-24, Kim teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer between an anode and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound represented by a formula (1) and a compound represented by a formula (2) (Kim-MT, page 2 of 81, lines 6-9), as hosts (Kim-MT, page 6 of 81, lines 17-20). Kim teaches the emitting layer comprises a dopant (Kim-MT, page 6 of 81, lines 16-18) and that, while the dopant is not particularly limited, Kim teaches examples on pages 168-170. Kim teaches examples of the compound of formula (1) on pages 9-142 including
PNG
media_image1.png
142
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 130). Kim teaches examples of the compound of formula (2) on pages 146-166 including
PNG
media_image2.png
138
145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 165). Kim teaches the device has organic light emitting device has the beneficial properties of excellent driving voltage, efficiency, and lifetime (Kim-MT, page 3 of 81, lines 8-9).
Kim does not specifically exemplify a device wherein the Kim's compound of formula (1) is specifically one of the compounds that meets the claimed Formula 1 and Kim's compound of formula (2) is specifically one of the compounds that meets the claimed Formula 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Kim's compound of formula (1) and Kim's compound of formula (2) from any of the compounds discussed above, because it would have been choosing from the list of specifically exemplified compounds of Kim, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as hosts in the light emitting layer of the device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising a compound of Kim's formula (1) and a compound of Kim's formula (2) having the beneficial properties taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Kim does not specifically exemplify a device wherein the dopant meets the claimed Formula 4. However, as noted above, Kim teaches the dopant in the light emitting layer is not particularly limited.
Boudreault teaches a compound comprising a ligand LA of Formula I, Formula II, Formula III, or Formula IV (¶ [0015]) in the missive layer of an organic OLED (¶ [0110] and ¶ [0118]) that as the beneficial properties of saturated emission color, narrower emission spectrum and improved device performance, such as high electroluminescence efficiency and lower power consumption (¶ [0163]). Boudreault teaches specific examples of the compound including
PNG
media_image3.png
259
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 151).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dopant of Boudreault as the emitting dopant in the device of Kim, based on the teaching of Boudreault. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain saturated emission color, narrower emission spectrum, high electroluminescence efficiency, and lower power consumption, as taught by Boudreault.
The compound of formula (1) of Kim meets the claimed Formula 1 and the compound
PNG
media_image1.png
142
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
corresponds to the claimed compound B-1.
The compound of formula (2) of Kim meets the claimed Formula 2 and the compound
PNG
media_image2.png
138
145
media_image2.png
Greyscale
corresponds to the claimed compound A-1.
The dopant compound of Boudreault meets the claimed Formula 3 and the compound
PNG
media_image3.png
259
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
corresponds to the claimed compound RD-26.
Therefore, the modified device of Kim meets claims 1-24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights