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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (WO 2023/093094), where Li et al. (US 2023/0422617) (hereafter “Li”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 12-14, Li teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, an emission layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0089]-[0099]) (claim 1). Li teaches that the emitting dopant can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
252
257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
244
181
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
236
141
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0057]) (claims 1-3 and 12-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
meets formula 1, where X1 and X2 are N(R12), R12 is a substituted aryl group, R6 and R9 are tert-butyl groups, R1, R3-R5, R7, R8, R10, and R11 are hydrogen atoms, R2 is formula 2-2, and Rc, Rd, Rg, and Rh are hydrogen atoms.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (CN111440122A) (hereafter “Jiang”), where machine translation is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Jiang teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, an emission layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (pages 234-250 of the machine translation) (claim 1). Jiang teaches that the dopant in the emission layer can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image4.png
87
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0094] of the CN document) (claims 1 and 12).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026) (hereafter “Geum”) in view of Qu et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2022, 61, e202201886) (hereafter “Qu”).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 12-20, Geum teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, an emission layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0391]-[0394]) (claim 1). Geum teaches that the emission layer can comprise a dopant that meets the following formula,
PNG
media_image5.png
136
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, where R1, R10, and R11 can be alkyl groups, a heteroaryl group, such as a carbazole, or an aryl group, such as a fluorene, spirobifluorene, or a fluorene group (paragraphs [0012]-[0018], [0058]-[0061], and [0078]-[0122]). Geum teaches the following compounds that meet the above formula,
PNG
media_image6.png
141
212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
168
209
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
164
213
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image9.png
168
221
media_image9.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0188]). Geum does not limit that location of the substitute groups.
Geum does not specifically teach where the compound is substituted with a spirobifluorene group.
Qu teaches similar boron compounds as taught by Geum (page 2 Figure 2). Qu teaches that the compounds are used as dopant for electroluminescent devices (page 1). Qu teaches that adding a spirobifluorene group to the core boron heterocyclic groups lead to a device with improve performance (page 7 paragraph under the heading conclusion).
The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state " A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c).” and “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
Isomers having the same empirical formula but different structures are not necessarily considered equivalent by chemists skilled in the art and therefore are not necessarily suggestive of each other. Ex parte Mowry, 91 USPQ 219 (Bd. App. 1950) (claimed cyclohexylstyrene not prima facie obvious over prior art isohexylstyrene). Similarly, homologs which are far removed from adjacent homologs may not be expected to have similar properties. In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960) (prior art disclosure of C8 to C12 alkyl sulfates was not sufficient to render prima facie obvious claimed C1 alkyl sulfate).
Homology and isomerism involve close structural similarity which must be considered with all other relevant facts in determining the issue of obviousness. In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967). Homology should not be automatically equated with prima facie obviousness because the claimed invention and the prior art must each be viewed “as a whole.” In re Langer, 465 F.2d 896, 175 USPQ 169 (CCPA 1972) (Claims to a polymerization process using a sterically hindered amine were held unobvious over a similar prior art process because the prior art disclosed a large number of unhindered amines and only one sterically hindered amine (which differed from a claimed amine by 3 carbon atoms), and therefore the reference as a whole did not apprise the ordinary artisan of the significance of hindered amines as a class.).”
Regarding claims 1-8 and 12-19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the compounds of Geum to comprise a spirobifluorene group as taught by Qu. The motivation would have been to improve performance of the electroluminescent device.
Furthermore, regarding claims 9 and 20, it would have been a prima facie case of obviousness change the position groups on the modified compounds of Geum in view of Qu to arrive at compounds that meet the applicant’s claimed compounds, such as
PNG
media_image10.png
194
142
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image11.png
203
166
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. The modified compounds of Geum in view of Qu are positional isomers of the applicant’s claimed compounds; therefore, the claimed compounds would be obvious and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds to act in a similar manner as the compounds of Geum in view of Qu.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026) (hereafter “Geum”) in view of Qu et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2022, 61, e202201886) (hereafter “Qu”) as applied to claims 1-9 and 12-20 above, and further in view of Tada et al. (WO 2021/200252), where Tada et al. (US 2023/0139757) (hereafter “Tada”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claim 10, Geum in view of Qu does not teach were the host materials meet the applicant’s claimed formulas.
Tada teaches a similar boron dopant material for use in the emission layer of an electroluminescent device (paragraphs [0203]-[0207]). Tada teaches that when host materials of the light emitting layer is a mixture of
PNG
media_image12.png
282
166
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, which meets applicant’s formula HT-1, and
PNG
media_image13.png
160
221
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, which meets applicant’s formula ET-1, the device has improved lifetime (paragraphs [0203]-[0207]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Geum in view of Qu so the host material of the emission layer is a mixture of
PNG
media_image12.png
282
166
media_image12.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image13.png
160
221
media_image13.png
Greyscale
as taught by Tada. The motivation would have been to improve the lifetime of the device.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026) (hereafter “Geum”) in view of Qu et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed 2022, 61, e202201886) (hereafter “Qu”) as applied to claims 1-9 and 12-20 above, and further in view of Baldo et al. (Nature 2000, 403, 750-753) (hereafter “Baldo”) and Lin et al. (US 2020/0119289) (hereafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 11, Geum in view of Qu does not teach the presence of a sensitizer in the emission layer of the electroluminescent device.
Baldo teaches that one can improve the efficiency of an electroluminescent device by adding a phosphorescent dopant to the emission layer of the device to act as a sensitizer for a fluorescent dopant (page 753 left column last paragraph). Baldo teaches that the sensitizer helps with energy transfer to the light emitting dopant.
Lin teaches phosphorescent materials that can be used as a phosphorescent sensitizer for the emission layer of an electroluminescent device (paragraph [0099]). Lin teaches that phosphorescent material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image14.png
124
216
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, which meets applicant’s formula D-1 (paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a phosphorescent material, such as
PNG
media_image14.png
124
216
media_image14.png
Greyscale
as taught by Lin, to the emission layer of the electroluminescent device of Qeum in view of Qu to act as a phosphorescent sensitizer as taught by Baldo. The motivation would have been to improve the efficiency of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang et al. (CN 111620890) teaches boron compounds substituted with a spiro group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights