DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment dated August 29, 2023 has been entered. Claim 13 was amended. Claims 14-20 were newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawing filed on August 29, 2023 is acceptable subject to correction of the informalities indicated below. In order to avoid abandonment of this application, correction is required in reply to the Office action. The correction will not be held in abeyance. The informality is the following:
The single drawing is currently labeled as “FIG. 1”. Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (u), “Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Per 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), the specification should be amended throughout to refer to “the FIGURE” rather than to “FIG. 1”. (See the original specification at least at par. 22 as filed for correction and any other occurrences of a reference to “FIG. 1” that may be present).
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification contains numerous chemical structures that are not printed clearly. Please see the instant application’s corresponding USPGUB 2024/0179929 A1 showing printed question marks at unclear structures from the original specification (for example, see at least page 8 of USPGPUB document). Clearer structures where necessary should be submitted in an amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lists “[C1]” by the formula 1. It appears “C1” is not needed in the claim. Also, claim lists “[C2]” by the formula 1-1. It appears “C2” is not needed in the claim and deletion is suggested.
Claim 4 lists “[C3]” by the formula 2. It appears “C3” is not needed in the claim and deletion is suggested.
Claim 5 lists “[C4]” by the formula 3. It appears “C4” is not needed in the claim and deletion is suggested.
Claim 7 lists “[C5]” by the formula 4. It appears “C5” is not needed in the claim and deletion is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
[Applicant’s foreign priority date has not been perfected. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome below rejections because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.]
Claims 1, 6-8, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (WO 2022/242521 A1; see English translation copy provided with this office communication).
Zhu et al. discloses compounds of Formula (1) for an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
154
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
More specifically, formula 1 compounds may include examples 1 to 4 (see par. 29):
PNG
media_image2.png
176
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above example compounds 1 to 4 correspond to instant claim 1 where instant formula 1 has a, b, c and d as zero and there are two R1 as diarylamino. Claim 6 is included in the rejection, because E is not required when a to d are zero. The core of examples 1 to 4 is the same as shown in instant claim 7. Regarding claim 8, compound 1 is identical to instant “D15” set forth in the instant specification (instant par. 63 as filed) and as an identical compound to a preferred compound is considered to meet the energy property recited. The reference does not expressly discuss the property difference in single excited energy and triplet excited energy, but is considered inherent to the materials. Note that the Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 13 and 18-20, reference compound 2 (see par. 29, 64) was used in a light emitting layer of a device as an emitting dopant (see par. 138).
Claims 1, 6-8, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2023/0240132 A1).
Cho et al. discloses heterocyclic compounds for a light emitting device according to Formula 1 (see abstract):
PNG
media_image3.png
188
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
At least compound 30 is disclosed as an example Formula 1 (see page 24):
PNG
media_image4.png
176
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Further compounds such as #1 and #4 are also taught (see page 20). The above example compound 30 corresponds to instant claim 1 where instant formula 1 has a, b, c and d as zero and there are two R1 as diarylamino. Claim 6 is included in the rejection, because E is not required when a to d are zero. The core of compound 30 is the same as shown in instant claim 7. Regarding claim 8, compound 1 is identical to instant “D17” set forth in the instant specification (instant par. 63 as filed, page 41) and as an identical compound to a preferred compound is considered to meet the energy property recited. The reference does not expressly discuss the property difference in single excited energy and triplet excited energy, but the property is considered inherent to the materials. Note that the Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 13 and 18-20, formula 1 compounds 1 and 4 were used in a light emitting layer of an example device as an emitting dopant (see par. Table 2 and par. 518, 521, and 532-537).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2023/0240132 A1).
Cho et al. discloses heterocyclic compounds for a light emitting device according to Formula 1 (see abstract):
PNG
media_image3.png
188
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
At least compound 30 is disclosed as an example Formula 1 (see page 24) as discussed in the above rejection:
PNG
media_image4.png
176
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
The above example compound 30 corresponds to instant claim 1 where instant formula 1 has a, b, c and d as zero and there are two R1 as diarylamino. The general formula 1 is not limited to only the example compound embodiments as CY1 to CY4 are defined as C3 to C60 carbocyclic group or a C1 to C60 heterocyclic group (see par. 10) where specific groups are further listed in par. 31, R1 to R4 groups may be substituents and can optionally bound to each other to form rings (see par. 22-24), and Z1 to Z4 groups are defined at par. 11-14. The definition of formula 1 CY1-CY4 and further R1-R4 bonding encompasses instant formulas 1 and 1-1 where instant a, b, c, d, w, x, y, or z are other than zero, which means that extra core fused rings may be present per instant claims 1-5 and 9-12. With respect to claim 6, a substituent group of at least a R1 to R4 may be a diarylamino (see par. 22). With respect to claim 7, at least above example compound 30 shows the core group is a suitable Cho et al. formula 1 core.
Regarding claim 8, at least compound 1 is identical to instant “D17” set forth in the instant specification (instant par. 63 as filed, page 41) and as an identical compound to a preferred compound is considered to meet the energy property recited. The reference does not expressly discuss the property difference in single excited energy and triplet excited energy, but is considered inherent to the materials. Note that the Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). Formula 1 compounds defined by Cho et al. are considered to encompass same compounds structures alleged by applicant to have the instant claim 8 property, absent evidence otherwise.
Further regarding claim 11, carbazole may be a heteroaryl substituent group of a Cho et al. Formula 1 (see par. 8-39) with the option of further bonding.
Regarding device claims 13-20, the Cho et al. Formula 1 material is used as dopant in a light emitting layer of a light emitting device (see par. 212-213 and 532-535).
While not all possible compounds within the Cho et al. Formula 1 definitions were shown as example embodiments in the reference, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds as described above wherein the resultant compounds and devices including would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds and operational devices within the disclosure of Cho et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
S. G. P. Plant, Muriel L. Tomlinson; 437. The structure of certain compounds derived from tetrahydrocarbazole. J. Chem. Soc. 1950; 153 2127–2130.
The reference discusses polycyclic heteroaryl compounds that are considered relevant to the field of the endeavor.
Shen, Shaogang, et al. "DIPz-TPTRZ Exciplex Films: Dual-Role Emitters and Hosts for Stable OLEDs with High-Efficiency and Reduced Efficiency Roll-Off." ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 17.9 (2025): 14312-14321.
The reference is not prior to the instant application, but is considered relevant to the compounds of the instant application and to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights