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 based on
applications filed in JP on February 4, 2021. It is noted, however, that the
foreign priority date is the effective filing date of the claimed invention if
a. The foreign application supports the claimed invention under 112(a), and
b. The applicant has perfected the right of priority by providing
i. A certified copy of the priority application, and
ii. A translation of the priority application (if not in English).
In the instant case, the applicant has submitted a certified copy of the priority application, but it is not in English, and the examiner cannot determine if it
supports the claimed invention. The effective filing date of the application is considered to be August 2, 2023, which is the actual filing date of instant application 18/263,942.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 should be changed from "general formulae (4a) to (f)" to "general formulae (4a) to (4f)" to enhance clarity because the general formula (f) does not exist since the formulas are numbered up to (4f). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 requires (1) “the compound” of claims 1, 9, and 10 that in combination with (2) a delayed fluorescent material and (3) a host material satisfy the singlet energy relationship wherein the singlet energy of the delayed fluorescent material is lower than that of the host material and higher than that of the compound. While claim 11 requires “the compound” (1) to be a compound of General Formula 1, claim 11 does not further define compounds (2) a delayed fluorescent material or (3) a host material by a specific structure or general formula. Thus, as compounds (2) a delayed fluorescent material and (3) a host material are so broadly defined, compounds (2) a delayed fluorescent material and (3) a host material may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds.
The instant description teaches Example 1 wherein the compound (1) may be represented by compound 53; the delayed fluorescence material (2) may be represented by SF3TRZ; and the host material (3) may be represented by Host1; (see instant specification pg 85-86). The instant description teaches “the compound” (1) can be other specific examples including compounds 3054 and 17254 (see instant specification pg 85). However, the description provides no examples of a combination of compounds that meet the singlet energy relationship and no discussion of singlet energies associated with the corresponding compounds.
Thus, the specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable for each of compounds (1), (2), and (3) but provides no further description of which combination of compounds (1), (2), and (3) satisfy the claimed singlet energy relationship. The absence of 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-1-ii).
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 1-2, 5, and 7-15 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 defines Ar1 as “represents a cyclic structure, and represents a benzene ring,” etc. which creates confusion as to whether Ar1 represents (1) a cyclic structure or (2) a cyclic structure represented only from a benzene ring, a naphthalene ring, an anthracene ring, or a phenanthrene ring. If claim 1 is interpreted as (2) wherein the cyclic structure must be represented from the rings listed, then the claim should be read as “Ar1 represents a benzene ring, a naphthalene ring, an anthracene ring, or a phenanthrene ring” where the language about “a cyclic structure” is omitted for clarity. For the purposes of examination, the examiner chooses to interpret claim 1 as (1) wherein Ar1 represents a cyclic structure. Claims 2, 5, and 7-15 are also rejected for failing to resolve the issue of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites an organic light-emitting device wherein “the amount of light emission from the compound is the maximum” where the light emission being “the maximum” is indefinite because the is no further explanation or standard provided, either in the claim or the specification, to ascertain the measurement or comparison for maximum light emission.
Claim 14 recites an organic light-emitting device wherein “the amount of light emission from the light-emitting material is larger than the amount of light emission from the compound” without providing additional information or parameters in which to form the basis of comparison of the “amount of light emission.” The language of the claim and the definition in the specification does not allow the examiner to determine the bounds of what a “larger amount of light emission is.” For example, a larger amount of light emission could be in terms of a larger range of wavelength emission, a larger area of light emission, or a larger number of photons emitted. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the larger amount of light emission to encompass all possible meanings including the ones outlined above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20150033272A, hereinafter "Choi"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
In the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices, Choi teaches a fused, cyclic compound following Formula 1 wherein Z may be oxygen to generate Formula 2 (Description pg 3-4). Choi teaches the compounds example 5-19 and 5-20, which are compounds of Choi’s Formula 2 wherein:
Ar1 is composed of three 6-membered rings fused together (ring 1, 2, and 3) and containing 2 nitrogens;
For example 5-19, Ring A is a 6-membered ring wherein three Ys are carbon and one Y is nitrogen;
For example 5-20, Ring A is a 6-membered ring wherein all four 7s are carbon and X1 and X2 are bonded together to form a ring (Description pg 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
914
3745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
914
3745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi does not particularly limit the identity of Ar1 to being the three 6-membered rings fused together containing 2 nitrogens forming rings 1, 2, and 3 as seen in Examples 5-19 and 5-20 shown above. Choi defines the identity of Ar1 as being selected from a polyaryl group with 8-50 carbon atoms in a substituted or unsubstituted ring (Description pg 4). Choi teaches that Ar1 may be selected from a 6 membered ring with 1 nitrogen (pyridine), a 6 membered ring with 2 nitrogens (pyrazine), a pyridine fused with a phenyl ring (quinoline), and a quinoline fused with a phenyl ring (acridine), shown below from left to right (Description pg 5, claim 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
176
1338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches that the organic light-emitting device containing a compound of Formula 1 or 2-2 improves luminescence efficiency and lifespan characteristics (Table 13).
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 substitute the Example 5-19 in the light-emitting device of Choi, wherein (1) ring A contains all Y as carbon and (2) Ar1 is acridine substituted with an additional nitrogen, based on the teachings of Choi. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with improved luminescence efficiency and lifespan, as taught by Choi (Table 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Example 5-19, because it would have been choosing (1) ring A containing all Y as carbon and (2) Ar1 as acridine substituted with an additional nitrogen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the organic layer of the organic light-emitting device of Choi and possessing the benefits taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 2-2 and having the benefits of improved luminescence efficiency and lifetime taught by Choi in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success (Table 13). See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The Modified Compound I of Choi is shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Modified Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of instant General Formula 1 in instant claim 1 wherein:
D is represented by General Formula 2;
m is 1;
Ar1 is a benzene ring;
n is 0;
R1 to R4 are H;
X is O;
R5 to R15 are H.
Therefore, the Modified Compound of Choi reads on instant claims 1-3 and 5. Note that claim 2 recites Ar2 and Ar3 can each independently form a cyclic structure, which is interpreted as not required.
Choi teaches an organic light-emitting device containing a compound of Formula 1 in the organic layer as a film with thickness of 300A; however, Choi fails to teach the organic light-emitting device containing the Modified Compound of Choi (Table 13). Choi teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound Example 5-5 is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the Modified Compound of Choi in the organic layer with the device structure of anode, organic layer, and cathode as Choi demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The resulting device reads on claims 7-9.
Regarding claim 13, the Modified Compound of Choi reads on the ‘the compound” in claim 13 wherein the amount of light emission from the Modified Compound of Choi is the maximum. Note that the maximum is interpreted as the maximum amount of light that the Modified Compound of Choi is capable of emitting.
Regarding claim 14, the Modified Compound of Choi is used in the common layer or “HTL” and the emitting material layer contains host ADN and dopant TPPDA. The amount of light emission from the light emitting material layer containing host ADN and dopant TPPDA is higher than that of the Modified Compound of Choi used in the HTL (Table 13).
Claims 4, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20150033272A, hereinafter "Choi") as applied to claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 described above in view of Jiang et al. (CN111620890A, hereinafter "Jiang"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
Choi teaches the Modified Compound I of Choi that reads on claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 as described above. Choi teaches that the Ar1 substituent is defined as a polyaryl group with 8-50 carbon atoms in a substituted or unsubstituted ring, described above (Description pg 4). 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 further include two fused phenyl rings in the Modified Compound of Choi in the light-emitting device of Choi, based on the teachings of Choi. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with improved luminescence efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Choi Table 13. The resulting Modified Compound II of Choi is shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches the above including the Modified Compound II of Choi; however, Choi fails to teach a motivation for the modification of the addition of two phenyl rings for the Ar1 substituent.
In the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices, Jiang teaches the compound, shown below, where a fused polycyclic aromatic core containing the ring structure where rings A, B, C, D, and E are fused together that is substituted by a fused polycyclic aromatic group featuring a ring system where rings 1 is benzene, ring 2 is pyrazine, and ring 3 is benzene and rings 1, 2, and 3 are fused linearly and ring 3 is further fused with two phenyl groups (pg 10 col 1, row 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
1203
1922
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The ring system containing the rings 1, 2, and 3 of Jiang is the same in structure to the Modified Compound I of Choi containing the acridine group substituted by one more nitrogen and differs only in that the ring 3 of Jiang contains two additional fused benzene rings. The ring system containing the fused rings A, B, C, D, and E of Jiang is the same in structure to the Modified Compound I of Choi with the fused rings A, B, C, D, and E and differs in that Ring B contains a substituted carbon atom instead of a substituted nitrogen. Jiang teaches that the ring system containing the rings 1, 2, and 3 of Jiang is a known and acceptable group for a compound with the fused core ring structure of A, B, C, D, and E. Jiang teaches that when a compound of Jiang is used in an organic light-emitting device, the device can achieve high efficiency and a low driving voltage (Description pg 116).
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 further fuse two phenyl rings in ring 3 of the Modified Compound I of Choi in the light-emitting device of Choi, based on the teachings of Jiang. The motivation for doing so would have been to substitute a known and acceptable group of Jiang to obtain an organic light-emitting device with high efficiency and a low driving voltage as taught by Jiang (Description pg 116).
The resulting Modified Compound II of Choi, shown above, reads on instant claim 4 and is represented by the general formula 4d wherein R82 is D and R81 and R89 to R92 are H.
Regarding claim 15, Jiang teaches that the organic compound containing the fused ring structure including rings A, B, C, D, and E achieves the purpose of developing organic thermally activated delayed fluorescent materials (Description pg 1-2).
Jiang teaches that the organic compound containing the fused ring structure including rings A, B, C, D, and E may be used in an organic light-emitting device containing the following structure:
A glass substrate coated with ITO;
The luminescent layer contains mCBP, a compound of Jiang’s fused polycyclic structure, and C545T;
Metallic aluminum as the electrode.
Jiang teaches the above, but does not teach the Modified Compound II of Choi as the compound in the luminescent layer. Jiang teaches an anode, a cathode, and an emitting layer and the fused polycyclic compound of Jiang is in the emitting layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the Modified compound II in the emitting layer with the device structure of anode, emitting layer, cathode as Jiang demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The resulting device reads on claim 10 and 12.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20150033272A, hereinafter "Choi") and Jiang et al. (CN111620890A, hereinafter "Jiang") as applied to claims 1-10 and 12-15 described above in view of Cui et al. (Nature Communications, 8 (2017) 2250, hereinafter "Cui").
Choi and Jiang teach the organic light-emitting device with the structure of anode; emitting layer containing mCBP, the modified compound II of Choi, and C545T; and cathode that reads on claims 1-10 and 12-15 as described above. However, the combination of Choi and Jiang is silent on the organic light-emitting device containing a delayed fluorescent material and the singlet energy of the delayed fluorescent material is lower than that of the host material and higher than that of the compound recited in instant claim 11.
In the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, Cui teaches an organic light-emitting device with an organic layer containing mCBP, SF3-TRZ and DPA-AQ wherein the structure of SF3-TRZ is shown below (Fig 1c, Fig 2a and 2b).
PNG
media_image6.png
237
307
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Cui teaches that SF3-TRZ is a delayed fluorescence compound (pg 2 col 1). The device of Cui is similar to the device of Choi and Jiang in that both use the compound mCBP and the compound DPA-AQ is similar to the modified compound II of choi in that both are polycyclic fused organic compounds. Cui teaches that the use of SF3-TRZ leads to an organic light-emitting device with an improved lifetime and high maximum EQE and long lifetime (pg 7 col 1).
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 further include the compound SF3-TRZ of Cui in the light-emitting device of Choi and Jiang, based on the teachings of Cui. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with an improved lifetime and high maximum EQE and long lifetime, as taught by Cui (pg 7 col 1).
The resulting organic light-emitting device containing the compounds mCBP, the Modified Compound II of Choi, and SF3-TRZ reads on organic light-emitting device of claim 11 wherein mCBP is the host material, SF3-TRZ is the delayed fluorescent material, and the Modified Compound II of Choi is “the compound.” The combination of Choi, Jiang, and Cui teaches all the above, but does not expressly teach the singlet energy of SF3-TRZ is lower than that of mCBP and higher than that of the Modified Compound II of Choi. It is reasonable to presume that the singlet energy of SF3-TRZ is lower than that of mCBP and higher than that of the Modified Compound II of Choi is inherent to the resulting organic light-emitting device of Choi, Jiang, and Cui. In the absence of data as not provided by the instant specification, support for said presumption is found in that materials of the light emitting layer of Choi, Jiang, and Cui has the similar structure as the materials in the light emitting layer of Example 1 in the instant specification. The Host1 compound is similar to mCBP in that both compounds contain a carbazole, a phenylene linker, and another diphenyl-containing heterocycle. The compound SF3TRZ is the same. The compound 53 is similar to the Modified Compound II of Choi in that both compounds have the fused polycyclic structure wherein rings A, B, C, D, and E are similarly fused and are substituted with a similar group that contains an acridine structure that is further substituted with an additional nitrogen and fused phenylene groups. Therefore, the resulting organic light-emitting device of Choi, Jiang, and Cui and the Example 1 in the instant specification are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCAS Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Fridays 7:45 am to 12:00 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, 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/L.Q.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights