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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0083816, filed on 07/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 06/08/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in paragraphs [00114], [00123], [00195], [00204], [00210], [00253], and [00279] are illegible due to poor resolution. Additionally, the reagents in the syntheses on pages 96 through 109 are not visible.
Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the examples below.
PNG
media_image1.png
228
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
1214
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15-16 objected to because of the following informalities:
These claims contain monovalent groups which are referred to by their non-monovalent names (e.g., Ar21 is monovalent but defined as benzene instead of phenyl). It would more clearly set forth the claimed invention to use the monovalent name for monovalent groups.
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.
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.
With respect to claim 19, the claim contains the limitation that at least one of *-(L3)-*’ and *-(L4)-*’ is *-CH2CH2-*’. Parent claim 11 states that L3 and L4 are each independently *-O-*’, *-S-*’, *-N(Q1)-*’, or *-C(Q1)(Q2)-*’, which does not allow for L3 or L4 to comprise a C2 alkyl group.
In continuing examination, this limitation is being interpreted as, “--wherein a3 is 2 and L3 is *-CH2-*’, or wherein a4 is 2 and L4 is *-CH2-*’.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to claim 19, the claim contains the limitation that at least one of *-(L3)-*’ and *-(L4)-*’ is *-CH2CH2-*’. Parent claim 11 states that L3 and L4 are each independently *-O-*’, *-S-*’, *-N(Q1)-*’, or *-C(Q1)(Q2)-*’, which does not allow for L3 or L4 to comprise a C2 alkyl group.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-5, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (JP H06145657 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Adachi discloses a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an interlayer between the electrodes (paragraph 0004) comprising an emission layer comprising a paracyclophane amine-compound (paragraph 0057), such as compound PC4-10 (page 12 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
302
711
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Adachi Formula (II) (page 3 of the untranslated document).
Adachi also teaches that, in general formula (II), R1 and R2 may be selected as a fluorolenyl group (paragraph 0007, line 4).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 where a11 to a13, and a21 to a23 are 0 so that L11 to L13, and L21 to L-23 are a single bond, Ar12, Ar13, and Ar21 are each a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group, b2 is 0 and R23 is not present, b3 and b4 are each 0 and R3 and R4 are not present, R21 and R22 are a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, L3 and L4 are each a *-C(Q1)(Q2)-*’, wherein Q1 and Q2 are each hydrogen atoms, and a3 and a4 are both 2.
Adachi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Adachi being a lack of the aforementioned fluorenyl group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from the finite list of possible carbocyclic substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a [2,2]-paracyclophane compound which forms a stable amorphous film upon vapor-deposition, does not easily crystallize, and is effective in improving durability, which also emits strong blue fluorescence depending on substituent selection (paragraph 0005), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this compound in the organic layer of an organic electroluminescence device, as taught by Adachi.
With respect to claim 2, Adachi teaches the device of claim 1, and Adachi also teaches that the interlayer also comprises a hole transport layer between the anode and the emission layer and an electron transport layer between the emission layer and the cathode (paragraph 0041 and Figure 3).
With respect to claims 3-5, Adachi teaches the device of claim 1, and Adachi also teaches that the compound may be used in the light-emitting layer, or the hole transport layer (paragraph 0029), and the hole transport layer is in direct contact with the emission layer (paragraph 0041 and Figure 3).
With respect to claims 8 and 10, Adachi teaches the device of claim 1, and Adachi also teaches that examples of electroluminescent elements include flat display elements such as liquid crystals and plasma displays (paragraph 0002, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device in an electronic apparatus such as a flat display, as taught by Adachi.
With respect to claims 11-19, Adachi discloses compound PC4-10 (page 12 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
302
711
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Adachi Formula (II) (page 3 of the untranslated document).
Adachi also teaches that, in general formula (II), R1 and R2 may be selected as a fluorolenyl group (paragraph 0007, line 4).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 where a11 to a13, and a21 to a23 are 0 so that L11 to L13, and L21 to L-23 are a single bond, Ar12, Ar13, and Ar21 are each a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group, b2 is 0 and R23 is not present, b3 and b4 are each 0 and R3 and R4 are not present, R21 and R22 are a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, L3 and L4 are each a *-C(Q1)(Q2)-*’, wherein Q1 and Q2 are each hydrogen atoms, and a3 and a4 are both 2.
Adachi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Adachi being a lack of the aforementioned fluorenyl group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from the finite list of possible carbocyclic substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a [2,2]-paracyclophane compound which forms a stable amorphous film upon vapor-deposition, does not easily crystallize, and is effective in improving durability, which also emits strong blue fluorescence depending on substituent selection (paragraph 0005), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 20, Adachi teaches the compound of claim 11, and the amine containing compound is instant Compound 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (JP H06145657 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Im et al. (US 2006/0113907 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Adachi teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Adachi does not teach nor fairly suggest the presence of a capping layer comprising the compound.
In analogous art, Im teaches an organic light emitting diode display and the device comprises an organic capping layer having a refractive index of 1.7 or more, providing a high-efficiency and long-life top-emitting OLED display (abstract).
Im teaches that a capping layer is used to prevent a significant amount of light from being lost due to total reflection when the second electrode is formed in a top-emitting OLED display (paragraph 0030), and when a compound with a refractive index of 1.7 or more is used in the capping layer, total reflection of light can be prevented, resulting in increased efficiency of red, green, and blue light (paragraph 0033).
Im goes on to suggest that an arylene-diamine derivative be preferentially used in the capping layer and should have an appropriate refractive index between 1.7 to 2.4 (paragraphs 0030 and 0032, and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the diamine compound of Adachi in a capping layer with a reasonable expectation that the compound would have the appropriate refractive index to prevent total reflection, resulting in increased efficiency of red, green, and blue light, as taught by Im.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (JP H06145657 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Im et al. (US 2006/0113907 A1) and Zhai et al. (US 2023/0422605 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Adachi teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Adachi does not teach nor fairly suggest the presence of a capping layer comprising the compound.
In analogous art, Im teaches an organic light emitting diode display and the device comprises an organic capping layer having a refractive index of 1.7 or more, providing a high-efficiency and long-life top-emitting OLED display (abstract).
Im teaches that a capping layer is used to prevent a significant amount of light from being lost due to total reflection when the second electrode is formed in a top-emitting OLED display (paragraph 0030), and when a compound with a refractive index of 1.7 or more is used in the capping layer, total reflection of light can be prevented, resulting in increased efficiency of red, green, and blue light (paragraph 0033).
Im goes on to suggest that an arylene-diamine derivative be preferentially used in the capping layer and should have an appropriate refractive index between 1.7 to 2.4 (paragraphs 0030 and 0032, and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the diamine compound of Adachi in a capping layer with a reasonable expectation that the compound would have the appropriate refractive index to prevent total reflection, resulting in increased efficiency of red, green, and blue light, as taught by Im.
However, neither Adachi nor Im teach a second capping layer on the first electrode.
In analogous art, Zhai teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first and second capping layer (paragraph 0105).
Zhai teaches that when the material of the first capping layer is matched with a material for a second capping layer, both capping layers can retard the total light reflection of light by encapsulation glass, which is conducive to the transmission of visible light through the glass, and further improve the light extraction effect, and especially improve the external quantum efficiency (paragraph 0107).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second capping layer in the device of Adachi and Im in order to further retard the total light reflection of light by encapsulation glass, which is conducive to the transmission of visible light through the glass, and further improve the light extraction effect, and especially improve the external quantum efficiency, as taught by Zhai.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (JP H06145657 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Adachi teaches the apparatus of claim 8, as discussed above.
However, Adachi does not teach nor fairly suggest that the apparatus comprises a thin-film transistor or a color filter layer.
In analogous art, Shin teaches an organic light emitting device which is electrically connected to a thin-film transistor (paragraph 0122) and comprises a color filter (paragraph 0133).
Shin teaches that the purpose of the thin film transistor is to drive the OLED device (paragraph 0122), and the color filter is able to filter the light emitting from the LED in order to obtain a full color display (paragraph 0133).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate both of a thin film transistor and a color filter layer into the device of Adachi in order to drive the device and obtain a full color display, as taught by Shin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (KR 2018/0078177 A) – teaches that adamantyl groups reduce the mobility of amine compounds, minimizing energy loss and providing high heat resistance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights