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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because "Figure 1" should be referred to as "the figure" instead, given that only one figure is provided within the application. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Chemical Formula 1-2 has the subscript (3-m1) for Ar6 {pg. 11}. However, m1 is defined as "an integer of 1 to 4" {pg. 9}. Therefore, if m1 is 4, there will be an unfeasible number of Ar6 substituents.
In Group I-1, the m--terphenyl-d14 functional group has no indicated linking point {pg. 20}. Therefore, the site of attachment is unclear.
Chemical Formula 2B is missing the bond between L5 and Ar4 {pg. 47}. For the purpose of examination, a bond between Ar4 and L5 will be assumed. Chemical Formulas 2C to 2F have a lack of consistency with respect to the ordering of these R groups of indolocarbazole because each chemical formula has the same labels in different positions {pg. 47-48}. This raises uncertainty when the R groups are referenced.
A single period is isolated as a line on line 5, page 48.
When listing the compounds of Group 2, the labels of the top row of compounds on most pages are located at the bottom of the previous page {pg. 51-60}.
Two structures from Group A are identical {pg. 62}. The identical structures are indicated below in the annotated select embodiments of Group A.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the synthesis examples {pg.77-82}, the sentences are difficult to read and correction is required. For example, words key to the reproduction of the synthesis were omitted in “2nd step: Synthesis of Compound 1-38” {pg. 78}. The areas where words are omitted are highlighted: “30 g (0.0535 mol) of Compound Int 1, 40 g (0.267 mol) of trifluoromethanesulfonic acid, and 282 g (3.35 mol) of D6-benzene were put and then, stirred at 10 °C for 24 hours. Subsequently, purified water was thereto and then, neutralized with a saturated K3PQ4 solution. An organic layer therefrom was concentrated and column-purified to obtain 18 g of Compound 1-38 (a white solid, LC-Mass Mz 578.79, C42HI0D18N2).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Chemical Formula 2B is missing the bond between L5 and Ar4 {pg. 35}.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites “La, L3, to L6 are each independently a single bond…” {pg. 5}. It is unclear whether the range is covering La and L3 to L6, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that “La and L3 to L6 are each independently a single bond.”
Regarding claims 2-12: Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 recites Chemical Formula 1-2, which has the subscript (3-m1) for Ar6 {pg. 6}. However, m1 is defined as "an integer of 1 to 4" {pg. 4}. Therefore, if m1 is 4, there are an unfeasible number of Ar6 substituents, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the subscript for Ar6 is (4-m1) as in the other structural formulas.
Regarding claim 4: Claim 4 recites that the moieties L1-Ar1 and L2-Ar2 are selected from Groups I-1 and I-2 {pg. 10-13}. The m--terphenyl-d14 functional group in Group I-2 has no indicated linking point {pg. 11}. Therefore, the site of attachment is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the linking point is located at the single position in m--terphenyl-d14 that is not deuterated.
Regarding claims 7 and 9: Claims 7 and 9 recite structures of indolocarbazole in Chemical Formula 2A to 2F. Chemical Formulas 2C to 2F in claim 7 {pg. 35-36} and Chemical Formula 2B in claim 9 {pg. 38} lack of consistency with respect to the ordering of the R groups of indolocarbazole because each chemical formula has the same labels in different positions. This raises uncertainty when these R groups are referenced, rendering the claims indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the numbering of the R groups is being interpreted such that the numbering of the R groups matches those of Chemical Formula 2A unless stated otherwise explicitly.
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 1-3, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi (WO 2023008501 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hayashi”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10-11: Hayashi discloses an organic optoelectronic device, comprising: an anode and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer is a light emitting layer that includes a composition an optoelectronic device {Example 4, paragraph [0115], pg. 29}. The organic layer comprising the composition is the light emitting layer {Example 4, paragraph [0115], pg. 29}.
The composition comprises the compounds shown below {Example 4, paragraph [0115], pg. 29}.
PNG
media_image2.png
263
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
160
246
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where as indicated above, the biscarbazole derivative comprises between 1 and 28 deuterium atoms in place of a hydrogen atom.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikenaga et al. (WO 2022255243 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ikenaga”).
Regarding claim 1-3, 7-8, and 10-11: Ikenaga discloses an organic optoelectronic device, comprising: an anode and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer is a light emitting layer that includes the composition for an optoelectronic device {Device example 17, pg. 28-29}. The organic layer comprising the composition is the light emitting layer {Device example 17, pg. 28-29}.
The composition comprises the compounds shown below {Device example 17, pg. 28-29}.
PNG
media_image4.png
361
295
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
393
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where as indicated above, the biscarbazole derivative comprises between 12 and 28 deuterium atoms in place of a hydrogen atom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (WO 2023008501 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter "Hayashi") in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 9: Hayashi discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Hayashi does not exemplify that the biscarbazole compound of the composition is completely deuterated. Rather, Hayashi teaches deuteration in a range.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the example compound 719 of Hayashi by completely deuterated the biscarbazole compound, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the performance of the optoelectronic device by improving the thermal stability of the organic compound, as taught by Li, by using the maximum number of deuterium atoms.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (WO 2023008501 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hayashi”) in view of Lamansky et al. (WO 2023008501 A1) (hereafter "Lamansky").
Regarding claim 12: Hayashi teaches a display device comprising the organic optoelectronic device of claim 10, where the organic optoelectronic device comprises of an anode and cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer includes the composition for the organic optoelectronic device of claim 1 {Example 4, paragraph [0115], pg. 29}.
However, Hayashi does not exemplify a display device.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic optoelectronic devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic optoelectronic devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic optoelectronic device of Hayashi to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Claims 4-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga et al. (WO 2022255243 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter "Ikenaga") in view of Li et al. (US 20020076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 4-6 and 9: Ikenaga discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
However, Ikenaga does not exemplify that the biscarbazole compound of the composition is completely deuterated. Rather, Ikenaga teaches deuteration in a range.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the biscarbazole compound of Ikenaga by completely deuterated the biscarbazole compound, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the performance of the optoelectronic device by improving the thermal stability of the organic compound, as taught by Li, by using the maximum number of deuterium atoms.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga et al. (WO 2022255243 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter "Ikenaga") in view of Lamansky et al. (US 20020182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”). The machine translation of WO 2022255243 A1 is used as the cited primary reference.
Regarding claim 12: Ikenaga teaches a display device comprising the organic optoelectronic device of claim 10, where the organic optoelectronic device comprises of an anode and cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer includes the composition for the organic optoelectronic device of claim 1 {Example 1, paragraph [0111], pg. 28}.
However, Ikenaga does not exemplify a display device.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic optoelectronic devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic optoelectronic devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic optoelectronic device of Ikenaga to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights