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:
The compounds and formulas across various pages of the instant specification have low resolution .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 12-15, 17-18, 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds and formulas are low resolution and it is difficult to discern the variables and atoms in the structures.
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 10 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 10, it recites “at least one of R21 or R22 is a substituted or unsubstituted or unsubstituted alkyl group…” which allows for one or both of R21 or R22 to be “a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group…” However, the claim also recites “and the remainder of R21 or R22 is a hydrogen atom or a deuterium atom”. This renders the claim indefinite because is unclear whether claim 10 is requiring only one of R21 or R22 to be “a substituted or unsubstituted or unsubstituted alkyl group…” and the other “a hydrogen atom or a deuterium atom”, or if each of R21 or R22 may be “a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group…”. For purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted as one or both of R21 or R22 is “a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group… and the remainder of R21 or R22 is “a hydrogen or a deuterium atom”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 114539297 A, relying on WIPO English translation).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 1
X is C(R21)(R22)
R1 to R2, R4 to R5, R7 to R8, R10 to R17, and R19 to R20 are each a hydrogen atom
R3 and R6 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms
R9 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R18 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms
Y is an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms
Regarding claim 14, Li further teaches wherein Formula 1 is represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
626
1210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 2
R18a is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R18b to R18d are each a hydrogen atom
R18e is an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms
X, Y, R1 to R17, R19, and R20 are the same as defined in Formula 1 (as defined in paragraph 12 for claim 13).
Regarding claim 15, Li further teaches wherein Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-a:
PNG
media_image3.png
931
1789
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 2-a
R1a to R2a, R4a to R5a, R7a to R8a, R10 to R17, and R19a to R20a are each a hydrogen atom
R3a and R6a are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms
X, Y, R9 to R17, and R18a to R18e are the same as defined in Formulas 1 and 2 (as defined above in paragraphs 12 and 13 for claims 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 16, Li further teaches wherein Y is an unsubstituted phenyl group (as defined in paragraph 12 for claim 13).
Regarding claim 17, Li further teaches wherein Formula 1 is represented by Formula 3:
PNG
media_image4.png
638
1209
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 3
R23 to R27 are each a hydrogen atom
X and R1 to R20 as the same as defined in Formula 1 (as defined in paragraph 12 for claim 13).
Regarding claim 18, Li further teaches wherein Formula 1 above is represented by Formula 4-3:
PNG
media_image5.png
621
1210
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 4-3
R13k to R17k are each a hydrogen atom
R21i and R22i are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R1i to R2i, R4i to R5i, R7i to R8i, R10i to R12i, and R19i to R20i are each a hydrogen atom
R3i and R6i are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms
R9i is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R18i-1 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R18i-2 to R18i-4 are a hydrogen atom
R18i-5 is an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms
Y is the same as defined in Formula 1 (as defined in paragraph 12 for claim 13).
Regarding claim 19, Li further teaches wherein R13 to R17 are a hydrogen atom (as defined in paragraph 30 for claim 13).
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 and 7-12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 114539297 A, relying on WIPO English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a light emitting element comprising:
a first electrode (anode in Device Example 1, Page 025, para. 2);
a second electrode disposed on the first electrode (cathode in Device Example 1, Page 025, para. 2); and
an emission layer (light-emitting layer in Device Example 1, Page 025, para. 2) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode,
In Device Example 1 Li teaches a boron-containing compound M-1 corresponding to general formula (1) in the light-emitting layer (Table 1, Page 026)
PNG
media_image6.png
645
1210
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In Device Example 1 Li does not specifically teach wherein the emission layer includes a polycyclic compound represented by Formula I because compound M-1 differs in Formula I wherein X is a -CH3, thus not containing an aryl substitution.
However, Li teaches specific compound M-10, also corresponding to general formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 1
X is C(R21)(R22)
R1 to R2, R4 to R5, R7 to R8, R10 to R17, and R19 to R20 are each a hydrogen atom
R3 and R6 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms
R9 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R18 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms
Y is an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms
Thus, Li’s compound M-10 read in the claimed Formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute compound M-1 with compound M-10, because Li teaches compound M-10 may suitably be selected as the polycyclic compound represented by Formula I. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill art would reasonably expect the predictable result that compound M-10 would be useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Li and possess the benefits taught by Li. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to specifically select compound M-10, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable compounds represented by Formula 1 and taught by Li, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Li and possessing the benefits taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Li’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Li in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 2, modified Li further teaches wherein Formula 1 is represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
626
1210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 2
R18a is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R18b to R18d are a hydrogen atom
R18e is an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms
X, Y, R1 to R17, R19, and R20 are the same as defined in Formula 1 (as defined in paragraph 25 for claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li further teaches wherein Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-a:
PNG
media_image7.png
630
1211
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 2-a
R1a to R2a, R4a to R5a, R7a to R8a, R10 to R17, and R19a to R20a are each a hydrogen atom
R3a and R6a are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms
X, Y, R9 to R17, and R18a to R18e are the same as defined in Formulas 1 and 2 (as defined above in paragraphs 25 and 26 for claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Li further teaches wherein Y is an unsubstituted phenyl group (as defined in paragraph 25 for claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Li further teaches wherein Formula 1 is represented by Formula 3:
PNG
media_image4.png
638
1209
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 3
R23 to R27 are a hydrogen atom
X and R1 to R20 as the same as defined in Formula 1 (as defined in paragraph 25 for claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Li further teaches wherein Formula 1 above is represented by Formula 4-3:
PNG
media_image5.png
621
1210
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 4-3
R13k to R17k are each a hydrogen atom
R21i and R22i are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R1i to R2i, R4i to R5i, R7i to R8i, R10i to R12i, and R19i to R20i are each a hydrogen atom
R3i and R6i are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms
R9i is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R18i-1 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom
R18i-2 to R18i-4 are each a hydrogen atom
R18i-5 is an aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms
Y is the same as defined in Formula 1 (as defined in paragraph 25 for claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li further teaches wherein
R1 to R2, R4 to R5, and R7 to R8 are each a hydrogen atom
R3 and R6 are each an unsubstituted t-butyl group
Regarding claim 9, modified Li further teaches wherein R13 to R17 are each a hydrogen atom (as defined in paragraph 25 for claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Li further teaches wherein R21 and R22 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (as defined in paragraph 25 for claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Li further teaches wherein the emission layer comprises a dopant (M-10, Device Example 1, Page 025, para. 2) and a host (BFH-4, Device Example 1, Page 025, para. 2), and the dopant comprises a polycyclic compound (M-10, Device Example 1, Page 025, para. 2).
Claim 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 114539297 A, relying on Google Patents English translation).
Regarding claim 12 and 20, modified Li discloses the light emitting element of claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 25 and the polycyclic compound M-10 of claim 13 as described above in Paragraph 12.
PNG
media_image8.png
562
1210
media_image8.png
Greyscale
While compound M-10 of general formula 1, cited above, fails to teach an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming atoms in the location of rings X and Y, Li teaches in general formula 1 that ring X and Y can be substituted or unsubstituted C5-C60 aromatic rings (top of Page 002 below general formula 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
334
540
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given general formula 1 and teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tert-butyl groups on rings X and ring Y with hydrogen, because Li teaches rings X and Y may suitably be selected as unsubstituted aryl groups. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a dopant in the light emitting layer of device Example 1 of Li and possess the benefits taught by Li. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
While modified compound M-10 fails to teach an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atoms in the para position to the nitrogen atoms bonded to Ar1 and Ar2 in general formula 1 of Li, Li teaches in general formula 1 that Ar1 and Ar2 can be represented by formula G, wherein Y2 can be CR and R can be a C1-C20 chain alkyl wherein examples thereof include methyl, among others(Page 2, first 3 paragraphs below formula G).
PNG
media_image10.png
313
527
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given general formula 1, formula G, and teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hydrogen in the Y2 position with a methyl group, because it would have been a choosing a specific exemplified C1-C20 alkyl group taught by Li. It would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of an alkyl group for a compound useful as the dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Li and possessing the benefits taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Li’s formula (1) having the benefits taught by Li in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
While further modified compound M-10 fails to include a biphenyl group as a substituent on ring Z, Li does teach substituents of ring Z include combinations of alkyl and aryl, wherein examples thereof include C(Me)2-phenyl (as shown in compound M-10). Additionally, Li teaches the aryl groups may include phenyl (as shown in compound M-10) or alternatively biphenyl, among others (Page 3, para. 3). Accordingly, Li teaches biphenyl is a suitable substitute for phenyl.
PNG
media_image11.png
308
518
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given general formula 1 and teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the C(Me)2−phenyl in the Z ring to a C(Me)2−biphenyl, because Li teaches the Z ring may be substituted with combinations of alkyl and aryl, wherein aryl may be selected as biphenyl. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a dopant in the light emitting layer of device Example 1 of Li and possess the benefits taught by Li. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select biphenyl and to form the compound such that the biphenyl group is attached to the C(Me)2 group in the ortho position, because it would have been choosing a specific aryl group and because it would have been choosing to provide the biphenyl group in either the ortho, meta, or para position, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Li and possessing the benefits taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Li's formula (1) having the benefits taught by Li in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified compounds read on the claimed compound 51.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 114539297 A, relying on WIPO English translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fennimore et al. (US 2017/0200893 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li discloses the light emitting element of claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 25.
While Li teaches compound M-10, cited above, Li does not disclose a compound wherein at least one of Y and R1 to R22 is a deuterium atom or comprises a substituent including a deuterium atom. However, Li teaches that the chemical elements in their disclosure include the concept of their isotopes, for example, “hydrogen (H)” includes the concept of its isotope 1H (protium or H), 2H (deuterium or D) (last paragraph Page 002).
Fennimore et al. discloses an OLED device and teaches that deuterated materials can be less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, excitons, or a combination thereof (para. 0098). Additionally, Fennimore teaches that deuteration can potentially inhibit degradation of the compound during device operation, which in turn can lead to improved device lifetime
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to deuterate compound M-10, based on the teaching of Fennimore. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound less susceptible to degradation by holes, electrons, and/or excitons, and to provide a device with improved lifetime, as taught by Fennimore.
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 deuterate compound M-10 in at least one of the locations corresponding to Y and R1 to R22, because it would have been choosing a specific location on compound M-10 in which to provide deuterium, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the in the light-emitting layer of the device of Li and possessing the benefits taught by Li and Fennimore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Li’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Li in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. CN 115772185 discloses a polycyclic compound with a boron-core that reads on Formula 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights