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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It's been noted that there are multiple chemical structures with poor resolution. Applicant is advised to review the specification and ensure the quality and resolution of the chemical structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6: All the heterocyclic compounds have poor resolution.
Regarding claim 7: The heterocyclic moiety shown has poor resolution.
Regarding claim 8: Formulae A-1 to A-13 have poor resolution.
Regarding claim 9: Formulae 4-1 to 4-17 have poor resolution.
Regarding claim 10: Formulae 1-109 to 1-111 have poor resolution.
Regarding claim 19: The formulae shown have poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because Formulae 1-73, 1-74, and 1-75 in claim 10 appear to be a duplicate of Formulae 1-109, 1-110, and 1-111 in claim 10 respectively. Applicant is advised to correct any errors.
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 8 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. The use of the term “may be represented” renders the claim indefinite as it implies there is a possibility that the formulae shown are part of the claimed invention but might not be required. For purposes of examination the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and examiner has interpreted the formulae as being or not being part of the claimed invention.
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 – 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (WO 2015009102 A1, Patentscope English machine translation) in view of Fennimore (US 20170200893 A1).
Regarding claims 1 – 6, Choi teaches compound cpd31 (WO 2015009102 A1, page 11, paragraph 49). Compound cpd31 reads on Formula 1, wherein Formula 1 n1 is 2, E1 is represented by Formula A, n2 is 0, and R1 – R7 are each hydrogen (see below). Choi does teach that at least one deuterium may be present in compounds represented by Formula 4 (page 7, paragraph 40).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
458
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
272
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Choi fails to specifically teach that compound cpd31 comprises at least one deuterium as required by claims 1, 2, 5, and 6. Choi also fails to teach at least one of conditions 1’ to 7’ as required by claim 3. Furthermore, Choi fails to teach wherein cpd31 a substitution ratio of deuterium is greater than or equal to 10% as required by claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches compounds cpd27 (page 11, paragraph 49) and cpd43 (page 12, paragraph 51). Compounds cpd27 and cpd43 read on Formulae 3-6 and 3-14 respectively, but fail to read on wherein in said formulae at least one hydrogen is substituted with deuterium (see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
216
210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
266
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
214
282
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
300
246
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches compounds cpd27, cpd31, and cpd43 as described above. Compounds cpd27, cpd31, and cpd43 read on at least one of Formulae A-1 – A-13, but fail to read on wherein in said formula at least one hydrogen is substituted with deuterium.
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches compounds cpd27 and cpd31 as described above. Compounds cpd27 and cpd31 read on Formulae 4-9, and 4-2 respectively, but fail to read on wherein in said formulae at least one hydrogen is substituted with deuterium (see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
216
210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
170
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
206
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
168
146
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Choi teaches compounds cpd27, cpd31, and cpd43. Compounds cpd27, cpd31, and cpd43 read on Formulae 1-86, 1-74, and 1-230 respectively, but fail to read on wherein in said formulae at least one hydrogen is substituted with deuterium (see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
216
210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
256
208
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
206
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
238
228
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
214
282
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
302
184
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one organic material layer interposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one of the organic material layers is preferably formed of a compound represented by formulae 2 to 4, wherein cpd31 is one such compound (page 14, paragraph 63). Choi also teaches that it is preferable that at least one of the organic layers is a light emitting layer (page 14, paragraph 64). However, Choi fails to teach wherein the organic electroluminescent device the compound represented by formulae 2 to 4 in the organic material layer is a deuterated compound.
Regarding claims 12-15, Choi teaches an organic electroluminescent device wherein the one or more organic layers may be at least one of a hole injecting layer, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and an electron injection layer and at least one organic material layer thereof may include a compound of chemical formula 1 of their invention (page 14, paragraph 64). Furthermore, Choi teaches the organic material layer including the compound of formula 1 may be a light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, and/or an electron transport layer (page 14, paragraph 64). However, Choi fails to teach wherein the heterocyclic compound in the emitting layer, hole transport layer, and/or electron transport layer is a deuterated compound.
Fennimore teaches deuterated materials can be less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime compared to their non-deuterated analogs (US 20170200893 A1, paragraph 098). Fennimore also teaches deuterated materials may be 10-100% deuterated (paragraph 097).
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 deuterate compound cpd31 as required by claims 1,2, and 4 – 6 to provide a compound that is less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime, as taught by Fennimore.
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 deuterate compound cpd31 such that it reads on the claimed Formula 1’ wherein each R1 is deuterium and d1 is 4 as required by claim 3, because it would have been choosing specific locations on the modified compound in which to place deuterium atoms, 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 device of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising (at least one deuterium) having the benefits taught by Fennimore in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
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 deuterate compounds cpd27, cpd31, and/or cpd43 such that they read on at least one of the claimed Formulae in Claims 7 – 10 to provide a compound that is less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, or excitons, have greater processing tolerance, and can potentially improve device lifetime, as taught by Fennimore.
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 provide compound cpd31 in a device having the structure of an anode, a hole injecting layer, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein cpd31 in view of Fennimore is provided in the emission layer, hole transport layer, or electron transport layer, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of Choi to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 20, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is organic light emitting device of claim 11. Claim 20 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and or heterocyclic compound. Choi in view of Fennimore teaches the organic light-emitting device of claim 11, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the organic light-emitting device of Choi according to claim 11 may be considered an apparatus.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (WO 2015009102 A1) in view of Fennimore (US 20170200893 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 20170346029 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Choi in view of Fennimore teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach an OLED wherein the emission layer further comprises a phosphorescent dopant and/or a fluorescent dopant.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Choi in view of Fennimore teaches the claimed invention above, but fails to teach an OLED wherein the emission layer further comprises an electron-transporting host, wherein the electron -transporting host comprises a cyano group, a π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group, a phosphine oxide group, a phosphine sulfide, a sulfur oxide group, a sulfur dioxide group, or a combination thereof.
Kim discusses in the background section, that in phosphorescent organic light-emitting devices using a phosphorescent dopant, all singlet and triplet excitons can be subjected to conversion to generate light, thereby achieving a high efficiency (US 20170346029 A1, paragraph 0002). Kim also recognizes the benefits of using a delayed fluorescent dopant, which improves device efficiency by increasing singlet excited states of the fluorescent dopant by converting triplet excited states to singlet excites states by reverse intersystem crossing (paragraph 002). Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device wherein according to one embodiment the organic layer includes an emission layer including an exciplex host or a delayed fluorescent compound, a phosphorescent dopant, and a fluorescent dopant (paragraph 038). Kim also teaches when a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host which form an exciplex, or a delayed fluorescent organic compound is used as a host in an emission layer, and such host is doped with both phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant, a fluorescent organic light-emitting device with a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance may be provided (paragraph 023).
Kim also teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer (page 2, Figure 1, layer 16), wherein the emission layer the electron-transporting host which forms an exciplex, may include a π electron-deficient heteroaryl compound, a phosphine oxide group-containing compound, a sulfur oxide group-containing compound, or a triazine derivative (paragraph 016).
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 combine the teachings of Choi and Fennimore in view of Kim to produce an organic light-emitting device, comprising a phosphorescent and/or a fluorescent dopant to obtain the benefits described above, such that the device contains high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance.
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 combine the teachings of Choi and Fennimore in view of Kim to produce an organic light-emitting device, comprising an emission layer further comprising an electron transporting host wherein the electron transporting host is at least one of the claimed groups, with high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEILI DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1667. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30AM-4:30PM, Fr:7:30am-11:30am.
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.
/K.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights