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 an application filed in Japan on 03/15/2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
(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.
Claims 1–9, 13–14, 16–21, 28, 31–32, 36–39, 41–42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al. (US 2023/0210000 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 09/15/2023, hereinafter “Yamashita”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamashita discloses the organic light emitting device of Example 11 including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compound C2 and Host1 [0250] – [0251]. Compound C2 [0194] reads on Applicant’s Formula (2), Formula (21), Formula (22), Formula (24), and Formula (25) (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
181
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
205
264
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
173
128
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
128
129
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
316
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A2 is represented by Formula (21), k is 2,
R203 is a cyano group, while R201, R202, R204, and R205 are each hydrogen,
D2 is represented by Formula (22), m is 2,
R211 to R214 and R241 to R244 are each hydrogen,
n is 2,
t is 0, so Rx is not present,
G is represented by Formula (24) and Formula (25) wherein,
R219 and R220 are each hydrogen,
X21 is O,
pa is 2.
Host1 [pg. 121] reads on Applicant’s Formula (3) (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
240
216
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
211
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms,
L3 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 ring carbon atoms,
R31 to R38 are each a hydrogen atom.
Yamashita teaches the compounds of Yamashita’s General Formula (1), such as Compound C2, have a lowest excited state singlet energy level (S1) lower than the S1 of the host material, such as Host1, in the light emitting layer [0118], reading on Applicant’s Numerical Formula 1.
Additionally, the instant specification recites TADF-1 [0457] and M3-5 [0431]. Since Yamashita teaches Compound C2 and Host1, which are substantially similar structures as disclosed by the Applicant [Table 1], the relationship of numerical Formula 1 is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claim 2, n is 2 in Compound C2.
Regarding Claim 3, Compound C2 reads on Applicant’s Formula (201) (shown below), wherein A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above, k is 2, m is 2, t is 0.
PNG
media_image9.png
154
192
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
316
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above,
k is 2, m is 2, t is 0.
Regarding Claim 4, m is to in Compound C2.
Regarding Claim 5, Compound C2 reads on Applicant’s Formula (211) (shown below), wherein D21 and D22 are represented by D2, A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above, k is 2, t is 0.
PNG
media_image10.png
166
171
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
316
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, k is 2 in Compound C2.
Regarding Claim 8, Compound C2 reads on Applicant’s Formula (202) (shown below), wherein A21 and A22 are represented by A2, A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above, m is 2, t is 0.
PNG
media_image11.png
198
180
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
316
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Compound C2 reads on Applicant’s Formula (221) (shown below), wherein A21 and A22 are represented by A2, D21 and D22 are represented by D2, A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above.
PNG
media_image12.png
199
155
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
316
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, one of the rings G is a cyclic structure represented by the Formula (25) in Compound C2.
Regarding Claim 14, the group represented by Formula (22) is selected from Formula (15) in Compound C2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
327
259
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
316
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 16–18, R211 to R214, R241 to R244, R219, and R220 are each hydrogen in Compound C2.
Regarding Claims 19–21, A2 is represented by Formula (A21) in Compound C2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
133
147
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28, A3 is represented by Formula (A34) in Host1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image15.png
129
274
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 31–32, L3 is represented by an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 carbon atoms (phenylene) in Host1.
Regarding Claim 36–38, R31 to R38 are each hydrogen in Host1.
Regarding Claim 39, Host1 does not comprise a pyridine ring, a pyrimidine ring, or a triazine ring.
Regarding Claim 41, the organic light emitting device of Example 11 does not comprise a phosphorescent complex.
Regarding Claim 42, the organic light emitting device of Example 11 is an electronic device.
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 1–25, 28, 30–33, 36–42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 2023/0210000 A1).
Regarding Claims 1–14, 16–25, 28, 31–32, 36–39, and 41–42, Yamashita discloses Compound C7 [0220]. Yamashita teaches the compounds of Yamashita’s General Formula (1) may be used in the emission layer as the emitter resulting in a high luminous radiation efficiency, and an improved light extraction efficiency [0116]– [0117]. Yamashita further teaches exemplified organic light emitting devices such as Example 11 including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compound C2 and Host1 [0250] – [0251]. Additionally, Yamashita teaches the compounds of General Formula (1) have a lowest excited state singlet energy level lower than the host material in the light emitting layer [0118].
However, Yamashita fails to disclose an organic light emitting device comprising Compound C7.
Therefore, given the teachings of Yamashita, 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 Compound C2 with Compound C7, because Yamashita teaches the variable may suitably be selected as Compound C7. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as an emitter in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possess the benefits taught by Yamashita. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
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 Compound C7 as the emitter, because it would have been choosing between Compound C1 to Compound C9 [Table 2], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the emitter in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possessing the benefits taught by Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound C7 having the benefits taught by Yamashita in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, Compound C7 reads on Applicant’s Formula (2), Formula (21), Formula (22), Formula (24), and Formula (25) (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
181
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
205
264
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
173
128
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
128
129
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
238
335
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A2 is represented by Formula (21), k is 2,
R201 to R205 are each hydrogen,
D2 is represented by Formula (22), m is 2,
R211 to R214 and R241 to R244 are each hydrogen,
n is 2,
t is 0, so Rx is not present,
G is represented by Formula (24) and Formula (25) wherein,
R219 and R220 are each hydrogen,
X21 is O,
pa is 2.
Host1 [pg. 121] reads on Applicant’s Formula (3) (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
240
216
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
211
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms,
L3 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 ring carbon atoms,
R31 to R38 are each a hydrogen atom.
Yamashita teaches the compounds of Yamashita’s General Formula (1), such as Compound C7, have a lowest excited state singlet energy level lower than the lowest excited state singlet energy level of the host material, such as Host1, in the light emitting layer [0118], reading on Applicant’s Numerical Formula 1.
Additionally, the instant specification recites TADF-1 [0457] and M3-5 [0431]. Since Yamashita teaches Compound C7 and Host1, which are substantially similar structures as disclosed by the Applicant [Table 1], the relationship of numerical Formula 1 is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 2, n is 2 in Compound C7.
Per Claim 3, Compound C7 reads on Applicant’s Formula (201) (shown below), wherein A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above, k is 2, m is 2, t is 0.
PNG
media_image9.png
154
192
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
238
335
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above,
k is 2, m is 2, t is 0.
Per Claim 4, m is to in Compound C7.
Per Claim 5, Compound C7 reads on Applicant’s Formula (211) (shown below), wherein D21 and D22 are represented by D2, A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above, k is 2, t is 0.
PNG
media_image10.png
166
171
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
238
335
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 6 and 7, k is 2 in Compound C7.
Per Claim 8, Compound C7 reads on Applicant’s Formula (202) (shown below), wherein A21 and A22 are represented by A2, A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above, m is 2, t is 0.
PNG
media_image11.png
198
180
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
238
335
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 9, Compound C7 reads on Applicant’s Formula (221) (shown below), wherein A21 and A22 are represented by A2, D21 and D22 are represented by D2, A2, D2, and Rx are the same as defined in Formula (2) above.
PNG
media_image12.png
199
155
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
238
335
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 10–12, R201 to R205, R211 to R214, and R241 to R244 are each hydrogen in Compound C7.
Per Claim 13, one of the rings G is a cyclic structure represented by the Formula (25) in Compound C7.
Per Claim 14, the group represented by Formula (22) is selected from Formula (15) in Compound C7 (shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
327
259
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
238
335
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 16–18, R211 to R214, R241 to R244, R219, and R220 are each hydrogen in Compound C7.
Per Claims 19–25, A2 is represented by Formula (A21) in Compound C7 (shown below), and R200 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image14.png
133
147
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
238
335
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 28, A3 is represented by Formula (A34) in Host1 (shown below), wherein R300 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image15.png
129
274
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 31–32, L3 is represented by an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 carbon atoms (phenylene) in Host1.
Per Claim 36–38, R31 to R38 are each hydrogen in Host1.
Per Claim 39, Host1 does not comprise a pyridine ring, a pyrimidine ring, or a triazine ring.
Per Claim 41, the organic light emitting device, as described above, does not comprise a phosphorescent complex.
Per Claim 42, the organic light emitting device, as described above, is an electronic device.
Regarding Claim 15, Compound C7 comprises carbazole-9-yl group 1 (shown below) [0019]. Yamashita also teaches carbazole-9-yl group 2 (shown below), wherein the only difference is that the oxygen is substituted with sulfur [0021]. Yamashita further teaches the compounds of present disclosure are useful as a light emitting material and may be used in an organic light emitting device to produce a device with high durability [0037].
PNG
media_image16.png
238
335
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
237
166
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
228
165
media_image18.png
Greyscale
However, Yamashita does not disclose a compound like Compound C7 wherein the carbazole-9-yl group 1 is substituted with the carbazole-9-yl group 2.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Yamashita, 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 carbazole-9-yl group 1 with carbazole-9-yl group 2, because Yamashita teaches the variable may suitably be selected as carbazole-9-yl group 2. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the emitter in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possess the high durability benefits taught by Yamashita. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
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 carbazole-9-yl group 2, because it would have been choosing between the carbazole-9-yl groups taught by Yamashita [0019] – [0023], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the emitter in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possessing the high durability benefits taught by Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound C7 substituted with carbazole-9-yl group 2 having the benefits taught by Yamashita in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting organic light emitting device includes the modified version of Compound C7 which comprises carbazole-9-yl group 2 wherein X21 is a sulfur atom.
Regarding Claims 30 and 33, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprises Compound C7 as the emitter and Host1 as the host. Yamashita teaches a list of host materials including mCBP (shown below) [0127]. Yamashita further teaches organic light emitting devices with high durability [0037].
PNG
media_image19.png
233
269
media_image19.png
Greyscale
However, Host1 fails to read on Applicant’s Formula (321).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Yamashita, 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 Host1 with mCBP, because Yamashita teaches the variable may suitably be selected as mCBP. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possess the high durability benefits taught by Yamashita. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per Claim 1, Compound C2 [0194] reads on Applicant’s Formula (2), Formula (21), Formula (22), Formula (24), and Formula (25), as described above, while mCBP reads on Applicant’s Formula (3) (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
240
216
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
233
269
media_image19.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms,
L3 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 12 ring carbon atoms,
R31 to R38 are each a hydrogen atom.
Yamashita teaches the compounds of Yamashita’s General Formula (1), such as Compound C2, have a lowest excited state singlet energy level (S1) lower than the S1 of the host material, such as mCBP, in the light emitting layer [0118], reading on Applicant’s Numerical Formula 1.
Additionally, the instant specification recites TADF-1 [0457] and M3-2 [0431]. Since Yamashita teaches Compound C2 and mCBP, which are substantially similar structures as disclosed by the Applicant [Table 1], the relationship of numerical Formula 1 is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 30, the organic light emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s Formula (321) (shown below), wherein L3 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 12 ring carbon atoms (biphenylene), R31 to R38 and R301 to R308 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image20.png
261
349
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
233
269
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 33, L3 is represented by Applicant’s Formula (317) (shown below) in mCBP. Wherein R310 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image21.png
95
253
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 40, Yamashita teaches the light emitting layer may further comprise an assist dopant [0118]. Yamashita further teaches the compounds represented by Yamashita’s General Formula (1) has a lowest excited state singlet energy level (S1) which is lower than the S1 of the host material, but it is higher than the S1 of the assist dopant [0118], reading on Applicant’s Numerical Formula 2.
However, Yamashita does not disclose an exemplified organic light emitting device comprising an assist dopant.
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 add an assist dopant in the emitting layer which has a S1 lower than Compound C7, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Yamashita according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with the high durability benefits, as taught by Yamashita. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 1, 26–27, 29, 34–35, 40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 2023/0210000 A1) as applied to claims 1–25, 28, 30–33, 36–42 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0127214 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding Claims 26–27 and 29, Yamashita fails to teach a host compound which is represented by Applicant’s Formulae (31) to (36).
Choi teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and a emissive layer between the two electrodes comprising a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound, wherein the lowest excited state singlet energy level (S1) of the first compound is higher than the S1 of the second compound, and the S1 of the second compound is higher than the S1 of the third compound [0010]. Choi further teaches the first compound may be Compound 8 which can be used as a host ([0104], [0218], and [0222]). Additionally, Choi teaches the organic light emitting devices taught by Choi have enhanced luminous efficiency, enhanced color purity, lower driving voltage, lower power consumption, and improved life span [0006] – [0009].
Therefore, given the teachings of Choi, 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 Host1 with Compound 8 in the organic light emitting device, as described above, because Choi teaches the host may suitably be selected as Compound 8. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the host in the emissive layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possess the benefits taught by Choi. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
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 Compound 8, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified first compounds taught by Choi [0104], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possessing the benefits taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 8 having the benefits taught by Choi in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, Compound C7 reads on Applicant’s Formula (2), Formula (21), Formula (22), Formula (24), and Formula (25), as described above, while Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s Formula (3) (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
240
216
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
349
379
media_image22.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms,
L3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring carbon atoms,
R32 and R33 are mutually bonded to form a fused ring (benzofuran), R31 and R34 to R38 are each a hydrogen atom.
The instant specification recites TADF-1 [0457] and M3-6 [0431]. Since Yamashita teaches Compound C7 and Compound 8, which are substantially similar structures as disclosed by the Applicant [Table 1], the relationship of numerical Formula 1 is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claims 26 and 27, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s Formula (34) (shown below), wherein L3 is an unsubstituted divalent heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms (dibenzofuran), A3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms (dibenzofuran), R341 to R350 are each hydrogen, and X31 is an oxygen atom.
PNG
media_image23.png
358
282
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
349
379
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 29, Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s Formula (314) (shown below), wherein L3 is an unsubstituted divalent heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms (dibenzofuran), and R341 to R350 and R300 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image24.png
236
453
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
349
379
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 34 and 35, Yamashita fails to teach a host compound which is represented by Applicant’s Formula (322).
Choi teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and a emissive layer between the two electrodes comprising a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound, wherein the lowest excited state singlet energy level (S1) of the first compound is higher than the S1 of the second compound, and the S1 of the second compound is higher than the S1 of the third compound [0010]. Choi further teaches the first compound may be Compound 1 which can be used as a host ([0104], [0192], and [0222]). Additionally, Choi teaches the organic light emitting devices taught by Choi have enhanced luminous efficiency, enhanced color purity, lower driving voltage, lower power consumption, and improved life span [0006] – [0009].
Therefore, given the teachings of Choi, 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 Host1 with Compound 1 in the organic light emitting device, as described above, because Choi teaches the host may suitably be selected as Compound 1. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the host in the emissive layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possess the benefits taught by Choi. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
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 Compound 1, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified first compounds taught by Choi [0104], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emission layer of the organic light emitting device of Yamashita and possessing the benefits taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 1 having the benefits taught by Choi in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, Compound C7 reads on Applicant’s Formula (2), Formula (21), Formula (22), Formula (24), and Formula (25), as described above, while Compound 8 reads on Applicant’s Formula (3) (shown below),
PNG
media_image7.png
240
216
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
262
379
media_image25.png
Greyscale
wherein:
A3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms,
L3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring carbon atoms,
R31 to R38 are each a hydrogen atom.
The instant specification recites TADF-1 [0457] and M3-7 [0431]. Since Yamashita teaches Compound C7 and Compound 1, which are substantially similar structures as disclosed by the Applicant [Table 1], the relationship of numerical Formula 1 is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claims 34 and 35, Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula (322) (shown below), wherein L31 is represented by Applicant’s Formula (318), R31 to R38, R302, and R300 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image26.png
239
414
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
262
379
media_image25.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
132
265
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 40, Yamashita teaches the light emitting layer may further comprise an assist dopant [0118]. Yamashita further teaches the compounds represented by Yamashita’s General Formula (1) has a lowest excited state singlet energy level (S1) which is lower than the S1 of the host material, but it is higher than the S1 of the assist dopant [0118], reading on Applicant’s Numerical Formula 2.
However, Yamashita does not disclose an exemplified organic light emitting device comprising an assist dopant.
Choi teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and a emissive layer between the two electrodes comprising a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound, wherein the lowest excited state singlet energy level (S1) of the first compound is higher than the S1 of the second compound, and the S1 of the second compound is higher than the S1 of the third compound [0010]. Choi further teaches that the third compound is included to prevent the organic light emitting device from having reduced color purity and lifespan [0117]. The third compound is equivalent to Yamashita’s assist dopant.
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 add an assist dopant in the emission layer which has a S1 lower than Compound C7 to the organic light emitting device taught by Yamashita, based on the teaching of Choi. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent reduced color purity and reduced lifespan, as taught by Choi.
Regarding Claim 42, Yamashita is silent with respect to a display device.
Choi teaches organic light emitting devices may be used in a display device [0025].
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 organic light emitting device, taught by Yamashita, in a display device, taught by choi, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Yamashita and Choi according to known methods to yield predictable results of a organic light emitting device with the high durability as taught by Yamashita. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasukawa et al. (US 2021/0143341 A1, hereinafter “Yasukawa”) discloses the organic light emitting device of Example 12A including an anode, a cathode, and an emission layer comprising TADF1, which reads on Applicant’s compound M2, and CBP, which reads on Applicant’s compound M3 (pg. 250 and 258, [0696] – [0704] and [Table 60]).
PNG
media_image28.png
420
239
media_image28.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image29.png
161
297
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights