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. JP2021-027160, filed on 02/24/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 07/24/2023, 12/24/2024, and 06/04/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 07/24/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the preliminary amendment, the claims, specification, and abstract were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-18 were originally filed
No claims are added, canceled, or withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 3-8, 10, 12, and 15-18 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application, and are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 1, the formula is labeled as both general formula (1) and [Chemical Formula 1]. It would more clearly set forth the claimed invention to use a single label.
With respect to claim 16, the formula is labeled as both general formula (2) and [Chemical Formula 2]. It would more clearly set forth the claimed invention to use a single label.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, the claims contain reference to the “EL element according to claim 8” rather than the “organic EL element according to claim 8”. While this doesn’t necessarily introduce uncertainty, in all of the preceding claims that reference claim 8, an “organic EL element” is used. Please make these uniform.
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 1-18 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.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim contains the limitation, “--in the general formula (1), any one of X1 to X3 is a nitrogen atom, and the others are methine groups…”.
This is confusing because there are two each of variables X1, X2, and X3. Thus, by requiring that any “one” of X1-X3 is a nitrogen, it is unclear whether,
the claim requires that one of the six variables, X1, X1, X2, X2, X3 and X3, is nitrogen, for one nitrogen atom total, or
the claim requires that one of the three variables X1, X2, and X3, is nitrogen, for two nitrogen atoms total.
In continuing examination, the claim is being interpreted as requiring that one of the three variables X1, X2, and X3, is nitrogen, for two nitrogen atoms total. Support for this interpretation comes from the compounds disclosed in the instant specification.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, 3-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 1020200842 B1, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claims 1 and 3-4, Lee discloses a compound represented by chemical formula 4 (paragraph 0019 and page 10 of the original document) for use as an organic light-emitting diode material (paragraph 0028), such as Compound 3 (page 11 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant general formula 1 when X2 is a nitrogen atom, X1 and X3 are methine groups, L1 and L2 are unsubstituted phenylene groups, n is 1 and A is a phenyl group.
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches the material of claim 1, and Lee also teaches example device 3 (Table 1, page 17 of the original document), which comprises an anode (ITO, paragraph 0121) and cathode (Al, paragraph 0125), and an organic layer between the electrodes which comprises a light emitting layer (paragraph 0123) and an electron transport layer which comprises compound 3 (paragraph 0133), which is the material of claim 1.
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 1-2, 5-9, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110128424 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 5-7, Zhang discloses a compound for use as an electron transport material in an organic display device (paragraph 0002), such as compound ET022 (page 9 of the original document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Zhang Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0011), when A is represented by Formula 2, and B is represented by Formula 3-1, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
110
339
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
298
343
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
287
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In Formula 3-1, Zhang also teaches that X1, X6, and X7 are nitrogen atoms, and the remaining X characters are carbon atom (paragraph 0042).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when X3 is a nitrogen atom, and X1 and X2 are carbon atoms, L1 is a naphthylene group, L2 is a single bond, n is 0 and A is not present.
Zhang includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Zhang being a lack of the aforementioned terpyridine group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any one or more X characters to be nitrogen atoms from the finite list of possible locations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound comprising a highly planar, electron deficient phenanthroline group which facilitates the combination of holes and electrons, generates excitons, and improves the electron mobility and device efficiency of an organic electronic device comprising the compound (paragraph 0025), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 8 and 15, Zhang teaches the material of claim 1, and Zhang also teaches an organic light emitting element comprising an anode (ITO) and cathode (Mg/Ag), a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer (paragraph 0116) and the compound is suitable for use in the electron transport layer (paragraph 0080, lines 1-5) or the electron injection layer (paragraph 0082, lines 1-2).
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 use the material in the electron transport layer or the electron injection layer of a device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Zhang.
With respect to claim 9, Zhang teaches the organic EL element of claim 8, and Zhang also teaches that the electron transport layer should be doped with Yb or Liq to reduce threshold voltage, improve device efficiency, and extend deice lifetime (paragraph 0008).
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 dope the electron transport layer with Yb or Liq to reduce threshold voltage, improve device efficiency, and extend device lifetime.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Zhang teaches the organic EL element of claim 8, and Zhang also teaches that the EL element may be included in a display device such as a light-emitting display panel (paragraph 0143).
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 use the organic EL element in an illumination device such as a light-emitting display panel, as taught by Zhang.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110128424 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2016/0043327 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Zhang teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Zhang does not teach nor fairly suggest that the material should be comprised in the charge generation layer of an organic EL element.
In analogous art, Yoo teaches an analogous phenanthroline-comprising compound of Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0078), which is pictured below, which encompasses the compound of Zhang.
PNG
media_image6.png
140
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This formula encompasses the compound of Zhang when Ar3 is hydrogen, Ar1 is phenanrolinyl (paragraph 0075, lines 1-3), L1 and L3 are phenylene (paragraph 0077, lines 1-2), L2 is a single bond (paragraph 0075, line 10), and Ar2 is terpyridinyl (paragraph 0076, line 12).
Yoo teaches that compounds described by Chemical Formula 1 are suitable for use in the charge generation layer of an organic light emitting device (abstract) comprising an anode, cathode, light emitting layer, and charge generation layer (paragraph 0059), and that when such a compound is used in the charge generation layer of an organic light emitting display device, it allows for efficient transfer of electrons from the N-type charge generation layer to the light emitting layer, improving device efficiency and device performance (paragraph 0116, lines 1-8).
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 use the compound of Zhang in the charge generation layer of an organic light emitting device in order to obtain efficient transfer of electrons from the N-type charge generation layer to the light emitting layer, improving device efficiency and device performance, as taught by Yoo.
With respect to claims 12-14, Zhang and Yoo teach the organic EL element of claim 10, and Yoo also teaches that the charge generation layer may comprise an alkali metal dopant such as lithium or ytterbium (paragraph 0102), and that doing so allows for the formation of a gap state which further facilitates transfer of electrons from the N-type charge generation layer to the electron transport layer (paragraph 0115, lines 1-7).
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 dope the charge generation layer of Zhang and Yoo with an alkali metal such as lithium or ytterbium in order to facilitate transfer of electrons from the N-type charge generation layer to the electron transport layer, as taught by Yoo.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110128424 A, using the provided translation for references) and Yoo et al. (US 2016/0043327 A1)as applied above, and further in view of Kambe et al. (US 2015/0303380 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Zhang and Yoo teach the light-emitting element of claim 10, as discussed above.
However, neither Zhang nor Yoo teach that the charge generation layer further comprises a phenanthroline dimer.
In analogous art, Kambe teaches an organic electroluminescence device including an anode, a cathode, and two or more emitting units that are separated by a charge-generation layer and the charge-generation layer comprises a phenanthroline dimer (abstract and Formula I).
Kambe gives a preferred embodiment of the phenanthroline dimer of Formula 1 in compound (B-75) (paragraph 0086 and page 20), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
262
421
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kambe teaches that using a phenanthroline dimer in the charge generation layer of an organic EL device results in an organic EL device with high luminous efficiency and which can be driven at low voltage (paragraph 0054, lines 1-4).
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 incorporate the phenanthroline dimer of Kambe into the charge generation layer of the light-emitting element of Zhang and Yoo in order to obtain an organic EL device with high luminous efficiency and which can be driven at low voltage, as taught by Kambe.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110128424 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2015/102118 A1, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 16, Zhang teaches the organic EL element of claim 8, as discussed above.
However, Zhang does not teach nor fairly suggest that the emitting material layer also includes an organic compound of instant general formula (2).
In analogous art, Hatakeyama teaches polycyclic aromatic compounds for use in the light emitting layer (paragraph 0331) of an organic electroluminescent element (paragraph 0001) which have a large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy (paragraph 0035) and display thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) (paragraph 0035).
Hatakeyama gives an example of the inventive compound in Compound (1-401) (paragraph 0016), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
222
244
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant general formula (2) when Za, Zb, and Zc are all a 6-membered aryl ring (benzene), Z1 and Z2 are each NRa, wherein Ra is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, and Y is a boron atom.
Hatakeyama teaches that the compounds of the invention provide an excellent organic EL device when a layer comprises the compound.
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 use the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material of Hatakeyama in the emission layer of Zhang in order to incorporate a fluorescent compound with a large HOMO-LUMO gap, high triplet excitation energy, TADF emission, and which provides an excellent EL device (paragraph 0046), as taught by Hatakeyama.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin et al. (US 2019/0181354 A1) – teaches aromatic ring substituents on the phenanthroline moiety raise glass transition temperature and prevent the compound from becoming deteriorated (paragraph 0020).
Kido et al. (US Pat. No. 6,013,384) – teaches doping of organic layers of EL devices (abstract).
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