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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are labelled “Figure 1” and “Figure 2”. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1-2, 16, and 20 recite definitions for the variable RE. While the variable RE is present in the structures of claims 13-14, neither Formula I nor Formula II of claims 1-2, 16, and 20 appear to include RE. Accordingly, it is unclear how to interpret Formulas I and II in claims 1-2, 16, and 20. For purposes of examination, RE will be interpreted as not present in claims 1-2, 16, and 20.
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are further rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claims 1 and 16.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US 2013/0026909 A1).
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12-18, Zeng teaches OLED devices having improved performance by comprising hosts represented by Formula I in the emissive layer (abstract; ¶ [0015]). Zeng teaches a specific example of a device in Example 1 which comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer comprising a host of Compound 1 and a dopant of Dopant D1, a hole blocking layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (¶ [0078]; Table 1 on pg. 15).
Compound 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
195
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 fails to read on the claimed Formula I as Si is not connected to the dibenzothiophene in the 4-position (i.e., Z is not joined to X9). However, Zeng does not limit the attachment of A to Z in Formula I (¶ [0016] and [0018]).
Formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
91
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A group:
PNG
media_image3.png
71
143
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Given the general formula and teachings of Zeng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound 1 wherein the dibenzothiophene group is attached to Si in the 4-position rather than the 1-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomers of the compounds represented by Zeng’s Formula I in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compound to be useful as a host in the emissive layer of the device of Zeng and possess the properties taught by Zeng. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified Compound 1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formulas I and II.
modified Compound 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
132
243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
I:
PNG
media_image5.png
153
334
media_image5.png
Greyscale
II:
PNG
media_image6.png
91
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modified Compound 1 reads on the claimed Formulas I and II wherein:
R1 is Formula II;
Moiety A is a monocyclic ring system comprised of one 6-membered carbocyclic ring (claim 4);
X1-X13 are each C (claims 5-6 and 8);
Y is S (claim 10);
Z is Si (claim 12);
L1 is an organic linker;
N* is N; and
R2 and R3 are each aryl, RA, RB, RC, and RD are each hydrogen, and R and R’ are not required to be present (claim 2).
Per claim 3, Formula II is connected to the compound of Formula I via N*.
Additionally, the modified Compound 1 reads on: the first structure on pg. 100 of claim 13; the second structure on pg. 105 of claim 14; and the second claimed compound on pg. 120 of claim 15.
Per claims 17-18, Dopant D1 is a phosphorescent emitter that has a ligand that reads on the claimed structure below (see structure of D1 on pg. 14 of Zeng).
claimed structure:
PNG
media_image7.png
162
182
media_image7.png
Greyscale
D1:
PNG
media_image8.png
153
240
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Dopant D1 reads on the structure above wherein:
K1 is a direct bond;
Y1 to Y11 are each carbon; and
Ra and Rc are each hydrogen, and Rb is a combination of alkyl and aryl.
Regarding claim 7, Zeng teaches the modified Compound 1 as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified Compound 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
132
243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modified Compound 1 fails to read on the claimed Formula II wherein one of X2-X5 is N. However, Zeng does teach in Formula I B contains a group selected from the group consisting of carbazole, azacarbazole, and combinations thereof (¶ [0017]).
Formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
91
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Zeng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute carbazole with azacarbazole, because Zeng teaches B may suitably contain a group selected from the group consisting of carbazole and/or azacarbazole. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the emissive layer of the device of Zeng and possess the benefits taught by Zeng. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified Compound 1 reads on the claimed limitation wherein one of X2-X5 is N.
Regarding claim 9, Zeng teaches the modified Compound 1 as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified Compound 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
132
243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modified Compound 1 fails to read on the claimed Formula I wherein one of X6-X13 is N. However, Zeng does teach in Formula I A may be selected from the group below wherein X1 to X10 are independently selected from CR’ and N (¶ [0018]).
Formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
91
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A group:
PNG
media_image3.png
71
143
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Zeng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute C-H with N in one of the locations of X1 to X10, because Zeng teaches X1 to X10 may suitably be selected as CR’ or N. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the emissive layer of the device of Zeng and possess the benefits taught by Zeng. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified Compound 1 reads on the limitation wherein one of X6-X13 is N.
Regarding claim 11, Zeng teaches the modified Compound 1 as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified Compound 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
132
243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modified Compound 1 fails to read on the claimed Formula I wherein L1 is a direct bond. However, Zeng does teach in Formula I L is a single bond or comprises aryl, amino, or combinations thereof (¶ [0015]).
Formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
91
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Zeng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phenyl group with a single bond in the location of L, because Zeng teaches L may suitably be selected as a single bond or aryl, among others. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the emissive layer of the device of Zeng and possess the benefits taught by Zeng. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a single bond for L, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable groups of which L may be selected as, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the emissive layer of the device of Zeng and possessing the benefits taught by Zeng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Zeng’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Zeng 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 resulting modified Compound 1 reads on the limitation wherein L1 is a direct bond.
Regarding claim 20, Zeng teaches Device Example 1 comprising the modified Compound 1 as described above with respect to claim 16.
Zeng fails to teach Device Example 1 is a consumer product. However, Zeng teaches devices may be incorporated into a wide variety of consumer products (¶ [0046]).
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 use Device Example 1 in a consumer product, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Zeng according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with improved performance, as taught by Zeng. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (US 2013/0026909 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Pan (US 2018/0312531 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Zeng teaches Device Example 1 comprising the modified Compound 1 as described above with respect to claim 16.
modified Compound 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
132
243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zeng fails to teach the modified Compound 1 is used as a delayed fluorescence emitter in the device. However, Zeng does teach compounds of Formula I have improved film uniformity and may be used to improved OLED device performance parameters, such as emission spectrum line shape, efficiency, and lifetime (¶ [0061]).
Pan teaches an organic light-emitting device having improved luminescent efficiency and lifetime by including a host in combination with a silicon-containing organic compound used as a TADF light-emitting material (¶ [0045]). In particular, the device includes an anode, a light-emitting layer, and a cathode (¶ [0147]). The silicon-containing organic compound may be represented by formula (1) (¶ [0009]).
formula (1):
PNG
media_image9.png
132
135
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Zeng’s modified Compound 1 reads on Pan’s formula (1) wherein: Ar1 is a heteroaromatic group and Ar2 is an aromatic group; L1 is an aromatic group and L2 is a heteroaromatic group; and R1 and R2 are each H; (¶ [0009]-[0013]).
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 use Zeng’s modified Compound 1 as a TADF light-emitting material in the light-emitting layer of Pan’s device, based on the teaching of Zeng and Pan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound with improved film uniformity and a device with improved device OLED performance parameters, as taught by Zeng, and to provide a device with improved luminescent efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Pan.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights