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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structural formulae on pages 3-6, 8, 27-30, 48 and 105 are of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 14, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, it is suggested that the comma after "element" and before "comprising" on line 1 be deleted for ease of reading; and
in claim 2, 4, 14, 16, and 18, the chemical structure formulae are of poor resolution;
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.
Claims 1-22 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the claims recite
PNG
media_image1.png
114
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
118
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the claim does not appear to recite what the first substituent may be and the first substituent and second substituent are not included in the definitions of Ra, R1 to R8, R11 to R18, R21 to R24, (and R51) therefore the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the first substituent and the second substituent may be.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the first substituent and the second substituent have the same definitions as Ra, R1 to R8, R11 to R18, R21 to R24, (and R51).
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 16-22 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 15.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwak et al. WO-2024010280-A1 (hereinafter "Kwak-WO" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Kwak-MT").
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-21, Kwak discloses an organic electric device including an organic material layer formed between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the organic material layer includes a compound represented by a Formula 1 (Kwak-MT, page 20 of 52, lines 14-16), wherein the organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer (Kwak-MT, page 6 of 52, lines 18-22 and page 7 of 52, lines 7-8; Kwak-WO; FIG. 1) and the compound of Formula 1 is a host in the light emitting layer (Kwak-MT, page 8 of 52, lines 3-10), which is phosphorescent (Kwak-MT, page 38 of 52, lines 22-29). Kwak discloses examples of the compound represented by Formula 1 including compound P-51
PNG
media_image3.png
176
248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Kwak-WO, page 72) and compounds P-86, P-87, P-88 and P-90
PNG
media_image4.png
147
174
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Kwak-WO, page 73), which are each a nitrogen-containing compound of the claimed Formula 1.
For example, the compound P-51 is a nitrogen-containing compound of the claimed Formula 1 and Formula 1-A1 where:
three of X1 to X3 are N;
L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a phenylene group);
Ra is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a phenyl group) substituted with a first substituent substituted with Formula 2, R1 to R8, R11 to R18, and R21 to R24 are each a hydrogen atom;
the first substituent is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a phenyl group) substituted with Formula 2;
R51 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a phenyl group), R52 is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a phenyl group) which is substituted with a second substituent substituted with a deuterium atom, and R53 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a phenyl group); and
the second substituent is an aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a phenyl group) substituted with 5 deuterium atoms (corresponding to the claimed S-1).
Therefore, the device comprising the compound of Kwak described above meets claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-21.
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.
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.
Claim 4, 14, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. WO-2024010280-A1 (hereinafter "Kwak-WO" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Kwak-MT") as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Kwak discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claims 1 and 15.
Kwak does not exemplify a compound of Formula 1 that meets the claimed Formula 1-B4. For example, the compounds P-51, P-86, P-87, P-88 and P-90 differ from the compound of claimed Formula 1-B4 in that the position corresponding to L3 in Kwak's Formula 1 is a biphenylene group instead of a phenylene group. However, Kwak teaches that L3 is selected from a C6-C30 arylene, among others (Kwak-MT, page 10 of 52, lines 3-5), wherein the arylene may be a phenylene, a biphenylene, among others (Kwak-MT, page 11 of 52, lines 1-9), and teaches exemplary compounds wherein L3 is a phenylene group, see for example compound P-1 (Kwak-WO, page 70). Kwak teaches that devices comprising the compound of Formula 1 in the light emitting layer have improved lifespan and efficiency (Kwak-MT, page 8 of 52, lines 17-20).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kwak, 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 biphenylene group in position corresponding to L3 with a phenylene group, because Kwak teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the variable is selected as such. 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 as a host in the light emitting layer of the device of Kwak and possess the beneficial properties of improved lifespan and efficiency taught by Kwak. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound P-51 of Kwak is a compound of the claimed Formula 1-B4.
Regarding claims 14 and 22, Kwak discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claims 1 and 15.
Kwak does not exemplify a compound recited in Compound group 1. For example, the compound P-90 differs from the claimed compound 34 in that: (1) the position corresponding to L3 in Kwak's Formula 1 is a biphenylene group instead of a deuterated phenylene group; (2) the position corresponding to R4 is a deuterated phenyl and d is 1 instead of deuterium and d is 5; and (3) the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 are hydrogen instead of deuterium. However, Kwak teaches L3 is selected from a C6-C30 arylene, among others (Kwak-MT, page 10 of 52, lines 3-5), wherein the arylene may be a phenylene, a biphenylene, among others (Kwak-MT, page 11 of 52, lines 1-9), and teaches exemplary compounds wherein L3 is a phenylene group, see for example compound P-1 (Kwak-WO, page 70). Further, Kwak teaches wherein R1 to R4 is selected from hydrogen, heavy hydrogen (e.g. deuterium), a C6-C30 aryl, among others (Kwak-Mt, page 10 of 52, lines 13-14) and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the position corresponding to R4 is deuterium and d is 5, see for example compound P-205 (Kwak-WO, page 78) and where R1 and R2 are deuterium, see for example compound P-55 (Kwak-Wo, page 72).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kwak, 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 biphenylene group in position corresponding to L3 with a phenylene group, the deuterated phenyl in the position corresponds to R4 with five deuteriums, and the position corresponding to R1 and R2 with deuteriums, because Kwak teaches the variables may suitably be selected as such and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the variables are selected as such. 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 as a host in the light emitting layer of the device of Kwak and possess the beneficial properties of improved lifespan and efficiency taught by Kwak. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound P-90 of Kwak corresponds to the claimed compound 34
PNG
media_image5.png
216
201
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. WO-2024010280-A1 (hereinafter "Kwak-WO" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Kwak-MT") as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Kim et al. US-20040100190-A1 (hereinafter “Kim-190”).
Regarding claim 9, Kwak discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kwak does not specifically disclose wherein there is additional layer between the electron transport layer and the light emitting layer comprising the compound.
Kim-190 teaches an OLED having an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant and a non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer adjacent to the emission layer comprising only the host (see Abstract, ¶ [0001]). Kim-190 teaches that such an arrangement improves luminescence efficiency and simplifies the manufacturing process since an additional hole blocking material is not required (see Abstract, ¶ [0022]–[0023], ¶ [0043], and ¶ [0045]–[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 modify the device of Kwak to further include a hole blocking layer adjacent to the emission layer on the cathode side comprising the host compound of Kwak, based on the teaching of Kim-190. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain improves luminescence efficiency with a simplified manufacturing process, as taught by Kim-190.
The hole blocking layer comprising the compound is between the electron transport layer and the light emitting layer and adjacent to the light emitting layer and therefore can be considered an emission auxiliary layer.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. WO-2024010280-A1 (hereinafter "Kwak-WO" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Kwak-MT") as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Kim et al. US-20200199164-A1 (hereinafter "Kim-164")
Regarding claims 10-11, Kwak discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kwak does not exemplify a device wherein the light emitting layer further comprises at least one selected from among a second compound represented by Formula HT-1 and wherein the emission layer further comprises a third compound represented by Formula M-b.
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an organometallic compound of a Formula 1 in an emission layer as a dopant (¶ [0007]-[0009] and [00036]), wherein the emission layer further comprises a host (¶ [0282]) and the host includes at least one selected from TPBi, TBADN, ADN, CBP, CDBP, TCP, mCP, Compound H50, and Compound H52 (¶ [0283]). Kim teaches examples of the organometallic compound of a Formula 1 in paragraph [0228]. Kim teaches that due to the inclusion of the organic layer including the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1, the organic light-emitting device has a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity (¶ [0239]).
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 incorporate the materials of light emitting layer of Kim into the emission region of the device of Kwak, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device having a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, and excellent color purity, as taught by Kim.
The organometallic compound of Kim meets the claimed Formula M-b, and CBP, CDBP, TCP, and mCP meet the claimed Formula HT-1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wolohan et al. US 20200168812 A1 cited on the IDS of 07/20/2023, recites a compound
PNG
media_image6.png
181
211
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on page 30.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights