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 .
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.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites that the first compound is “at least” one of Compounds H1 to H15, and recites that the second compound is “at least” one of Compounds E1 to E40 which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as Formulae 1 and 2 for the first and second compounds, respectively, correspond to a single compound (and not a mixture). The Office has interpreted that the first compound “is
Correction is required.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites that the third compound is “at least” one of Compounds P1 to P52” which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as the third “compound” corresponds to a single compound (and not a mixture). The Office has interpreted that the third compound “is
Correction is required.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites that the fourth compound is “at least” one of Compounds D1 to D30” which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as the fourth “compound” corresponds to a single compound (and not a mixture). The Office has interpreted that the fourth compound “is
Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (EP 3 657 563 A1) in view of Ham et al. (WO 2016/089165 A2).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of WIPO publication WO 2016/089165 A2 (herein referred to as “Ham et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ahn et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) comprising the following layers: anode, hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, light-emitting auxiliary layer, electron-blocking layer, light-emitting layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, electron-injecting layer, and cathode ([0050]); the light-emitting layer comprises host material and dopant material (fluorescent or phosphorescent) ([0101]). Ahn et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
150
116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 13) (second compound) such that X21-23 = N, rings CY23-24 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), b23-24 = 1, R23-24 = hydrogen, n21-22 = 1, L21 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene), L22 = single bond, b21 = 1, R21 = -Si(Q1)(Q2)(Q3) (with Q1-3 = phenyl), b22 = 1, and R22 = unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group (N-carbazolyl) of Applicant’s Formula 2; corresponds to E1 as recited in Claim 10. Ahn et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material ([0105]); the host material may further comprise compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
28
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0105]) where xb11 = 1-3, Ar301 = substituted or unsubstituted C1-60 heterocyclic group (among others), xb1 = 0-5, xb21 = 1-5, and R301 = substituted or unsubstituted C1-60 heteroaryl group (among others) ([0106]). Furthermore, Ahn et al. discloses that a plurality of compounds may comprise the host material (wherein the specific embodiments “are not limited thereto”) ([0117]). Ahn et al. discloses dopant materials such as the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
118
88
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0124]) (third compound) such that M51 = transition metal (Ir), n51 = 3, n52 = 0, and L51 = Applicant’s Formula 5A (with Y51 = C, Y52 = N, ring CY51 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), ring CY52 = C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine), b51-52 = 1, and R51-52 = hydrogen) of Applicant’s Formula 5. However, Ahn et al. does not explicitly disclose a first compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 as recited in Claim 1.
Ham et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image4.png
248
362
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([113] of Ham et al) where r1-6 = independently hydrogen, deuterium, substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl (among others) and Ar = substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl (among others) wherein substituent = deuterium (pages 16-17). Ham et al. discloses the following embodiment:
PNG
media_image5.png
120
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 34) (first compound) such that n11 = 1, rings CY13-14 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), k1 = 1, E1 = Applicant’s Formula 1A (with n12 = 0), and one of R12 = unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group (N-carbazolyl) of Applicant’s Formula 1; corresponds to H12 as recited Claim 10. However, Ham et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Formula 1, particularly in regards to the presence of at least one deuterium. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the compound as disclosed by Ham et al. (above) such that the resulting compound comprises at least one deuterium. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one atom (hydrogen) for a functional equivalent (deuterium) selected from a highly finite list as envisioned by Ham et al. of viable substituent groups as alternatives to hydrogen; further motivation exists, as deuterium is merely an isotopic equivalent and thus can be expected to produce a compound with similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Ham et al. further discloses that such compounds comprise the host material for use in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device (pages 16, 22-23). Ham et al. discloses that the use of the host material results in a device with low-voltage operation and high efficiency (page 26). It would have been obvious to incorporate the host material as disclosed by Ham et al. into the light-emitting layer (as additional host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Ham et al. which teaches that the use of its host material results in a device with low-voltage operation and high efficiency.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (EP 3 657 563 A1) in view of Ham et al. (WO 2016/089165 A2) as applied above and in further view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of WIPO publication WO 2016/089165 A2 (herein referred to as “Ham et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ahn et al. in view of Ham et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device of Claim 13 as shown above. Ahn et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises host material and dopant material (fluorescent or phosphorescent) ([0101]). However, Ahn et al. in view of Ham et al. does not explicitly disclose a third or fourth compound as recited in the claims.
Hatakeyama et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
176
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 37) (fourth compound) such that Z = B, n43 = 0, n41-42 = 1, L41-42 = -N(phenyl)-, b41-43 = 1, and R41-43 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Formula 4; corresponds to D1 as recited in Claim 19. Hatakeyama et al. discloses its inventive compounds as dopant material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device ([0119]); the use results in an “excellent” organic EL element ([0045]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound (1-401) as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ahn et al. in view of Ham et al. (as dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hatakeyama et al. which that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in an excellent organic EL element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights