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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figs. 1-2 and 7-10 contain the variable DR3, and Figs. 2, 7, and 9-10 contain the variables I and I’ which are not mentioned in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification contains blurry structures across various pages. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1), as evidenced by Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 22-23, Fleetham teaches an OLED having improved photophysical properties and device performance by including a compound represented by Formula I as a fluorescent emitter in an emissive region (¶ [0006]-[0007], [0076], [0090]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I include the compound below on pg. 25.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
142
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fleetham’s compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fleetham’s compound fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as the carbazole substituents are attached to the phenyl group via the nitrogen atom rather than the 4-position. However, Fleetham teaches in Formula I, Y1 and Y2 may be NR wherein R may be combinations of aryl and heteroaryl wherein examples of heteroaryl include carbazole (¶ [0007] and [0039]). Additionally, Fleetham teaches examples of the heteroaryl include R56 and R59 (pg. 19). Accordingly, the carbazole substituents are not limited to attachment via the nitrogen atom.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Fleetham, 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 Fleetham’s compound wherein each of the carbazole substituents are attached to the phenyl in the 4-position rather than via the nitrogen atom. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Fleetham’s Formula I in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a fluorescent emitter in the emissive region of the device of Fleetham and possess the properties taught by Fleetham. 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 of Fleetham is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified Fleetham:
PNG
media_image3.png
560
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
208
232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
296
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modified compound of Fleetham reads on the claimed Formulas 1, 2, and 3 (claims 1, 13, and 19) wherein:
X1 and X2 are each a moiety represented by Formula 2, which is further represented by Formula 2-4 (claims 7 and 22);
R1 to R11 are each hydrogen (claims 5 and 16);
Y1 and Y2 are each N(R18);
R13 to R17 are each hydrogen and R18 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (claims 18 and 23); and
n1 and n2 are each 7.
Additionally, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formulas 1-2, 1-1a, 3-4, and 3-1a (claims 3-4, 14-15, 20).
Fleetham fails to teach a device comprising the modified compound. However, as discussed above, Fleetham teaches the compound represented by Formula I is used as a fluorescent emitter and provides a device with improved photophysical properties and device performance (¶ [0006] and [0076]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer includes a host and a dopant, wherein the host includes a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host, and the dopant includes a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant, wherein examples of the fluorescent dopant are not limited to specific structures (abstract; ¶ [0062]). Such a device obtains high external quantum efficiency and improved roll-off characteristic (¶ [0003]). Kim teaches examples of devices including the device of Example 1 which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer comprising hosts of TCTA and B4PYMPM and dopants of Ir(ppy)3 and DCJTB (fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0083]).
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 substitute DCJTB in the device of Kim’s Example 1 with Fleetham’s modified compound, based on the teaching of Fleetham and Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved photophysical properties and device performance, as taught by Fleetham, and to provide a device with high external quantum efficiency and improved roll-off characteristic, as taught by Kim.
TCTA is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula HT (see structure on page 4 of Kim).
TCTA:
PNG
media_image6.png
282
314
media_image6.png
Greyscale
HT:
PNG
media_image7.png
188
424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
TCTA reads on the claimed Formula HT wherein:
L1 is a direct linkage;
Ar1 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms;
Y is a direct linkage;
Z is C(Rz);
R31, R32, and Rz are each hydrogen;
n31 is 4 and n32 is 3.
B4PYMPM is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula ET (see structure on page 6 of Kim).
B4PYMPM:
PNG
media_image8.png
192
311
media_image8.png
Greyscale
ET:
PNG
media_image9.png
177
229
media_image9.png
Greyscale
B4PYMPM reads on the claimed Formula ET wherein:
Z1 and Z3 are each N and Z2 is C(R36); and
R33 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom, R34 and R35 are each a substituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, and R36 is hydrogen.
Per claim 10, Hatakeyama teaches a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence (see Hatakeyama, ¶ [0046]). The modified compound of Fleetham reads on Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) wherein: rings A, B, and C are each an aryl ring, Y1 represents B, X1 and X2 each represent N-R, and each R represents a substituted aryl (see Hatakeyama, ¶ [0013]-[0016]). Thus, as evidenced by Hatakeyama, the modified compound of Fleetham exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence. Accordingly, an emission layer comprising the modified compound of Fleetham emits delayed fluorescence.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim ‘164 (US 2020/0199164 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Fleetham in view of Kim teach the device including an emission layer comprising Ir(ppy)3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Ir(ppy)3 fails to read on the claimed Formula PS. However, Fleetham does not limit the type of emitter used in conjunction with the compound represented by Formula (I), and Kim teaches the phosphorescent dopant used in the device may include a complex including platinum (see Fleetham, ¶ [0136]; see Kim, ¶ [0061]).
Kim ‘164 teaches organometallic compounds represented by Formula 1 having excellent phosphorescence characteristics with improved light emission characteristics and luminescent efficiency and high color purity, wherein the organometallic compounds may be used as a dopant in an emission layer of an OLED (¶ [0036], [0231], [0233], and [0427]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include Compound 1 (pg. 173).
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 substitute Ir(ppy)3 in the device of Fleetham in view of Kim with a compound of Formula 1 of Kim ‘164, based on the teaching of Kim ‘164. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound with excellent phosphorescence characteristics with improved light emission characteristics and luminescent efficiency and high color purity, as taught by Kim ‘164.
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 Compound 1, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds taught by Kim ’164 and represented by Formula 1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the phosphorescent dopant in the emission layer of the device of Fleetham in view of Kim and Kim ‘164 and possessing the benefits taught by Kim ‘164. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Formula 1 of Kim ‘164 having the benefits taught by Kim ‘164 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula PS (see structure on pg. 173 of Kim ‘164).
Compound 1:
PNG
media_image10.png
161
206
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PS:
PNG
media_image11.png
391
375
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 reads on the claimed Formula PS wherein:
Q1 to Q3 are each C and Q4 is N;
C1 is a substituted heterocycle having 7 ring-forming carbon atoms, C2 is an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, C3 is an unsubstituted heterocycle having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms, and C4 is a substituted heterocycle having 5 ring-forming carbon atoms;
L11 and L13 are each a direct linkage, L12 is *-O-*, and L14 is not required to be present;
e1 to e3 are each 1 and e4 is 0;
R41 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom, R42 and R43 are each not required to be present, and R44 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms; and
d1 and d4 are each 1, d2 and d3 are each 0.
Claims 6, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) as applied to claims 1, 13, and 19 above, and further in view of Kato (US 2021/0062078 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 17, and 21, Fleetham in view of Kim teach the device including an emission layer comprising the modified compound of Fleetham, as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified Fleetham:
PNG
media_image3.png
560
685
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modified compound fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein at least one of R5, R6, R9, and R10 is other than hydrogen. However, Fleetham does teach in Formula I that the substituents of rings A and B (RA and RB) may be selected as heteroaryl groups (¶ [0007]).
Kato teaches a compound represented by formula (1) wherein at least one of R1 to R8 is a group represented by formula (2), wherein HAr is a heterocyclic group (abstract; ¶ [0017]). Such a compound provides an organic electroluminescence device with high luminous efficiency (¶ [0006]). Kato teaches specific examples of compounds represented by formula (1) including Compound 3 (pg. 144). As shown in Table 2, Compound 3 (containing two carbazole groups in the locations of R2 and R7) obtains improved external quantum efficiency in comparison to the Comparative Compound 1 (containing only hydrogen in the locations of R2 and R7).
(1):
PNG
media_image12.png
188
198
media_image12.png
Greyscale
; (2): -L1-HAr; 3:
PNG
media_image13.png
202
319
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The modified compound of Fleetham reads on Kato’s formula (1) except wherein it does not contain a group represented by HAr in the locations of at least one of R1 to R8.
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 substitute hydrogen atoms with unsubstituted carbazole groups in the locations corresponding to Kato’s R2 and R7, as shown in Kato’s Compound 3, based on the teaching of Kato. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high luminous efficiency and improved external quantum efficiency, as taught by Kato.
The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Kato reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein R5 and R10 are each an unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (carbazole).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 8 and 24, the prior art does not teach a polycyclic compound of Compound Group 1, in combination with the remainder of claims 8 and 24.
Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1), cited in the rejection above, is considered the closest prior art. Fleetham teaches an OLED having improved photophysical properties and device performance by including a compound represented by Formula I as a fluorescent emitter in an emissive region (¶ [0006]-[0007], [0076], [0090]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I include the compound below on pg. 25.
Fleetham’s compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
176
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While the carbazole substituents of Fleetham’s compound are not limited to attachment via the nitrogen atom, Fleetham fails to teach a compound of Compound Group 1.
Thus there is no prior art, either alone or combination, which teaches or renders obvious a polycyclic compound selected from Compound Group 1, in combination with the remainder of claims 8 and 24.
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