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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: various structures throughout the specification appear to be missing bonds between variables. For example, see the structure below found on instant page 11.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended in claim 13 to make the structures larger as bonds are not clearly shown between variables X1 to X24. For example, see the highlighted portion in the third structure below. It is recommended to make the structures in claim 18 larger for the same reasons.
PNG
media_image2.png
269
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 fails to end in a period.
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 16 and 18-19 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.
Claim 16 recites compounds which read on the claimed Formula I wherein the pair of R3 and R6 are represented by Formula II and/or Formula III. For example, see at least the first two compounds on pg. 152:
PNG
media_image3.png
239
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, claim 1 (of which claim 16 depends upon) recites requires one of statements (1) to (5) to be satisfied, which does not allow for a pair of R3 and R6 to be represented by Formula II and/or Formula III. Since the compounds do not satisfy one of statements (1) to (5), it is unclear how these compounds read on the claim. For purposes of examination, the compounds will be interpreted as not present.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the phosphorescent emitter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sensitizer compound" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “wherein the phosphorescent emitter is a metal coordination complex having a metal-carbon bond, a metal-nitrogen bond, or a metal-oxygen bond”, and the claim also recites subsequent limitations that are required “in some embodiments”, and these are the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 18 recites a formula
PNG
media_image4.png
184
155
media_image4.png
Greyscale
including the variables Y14 and Y15. However, no definition is provided in claim 18 for variables Y14 and Y15. Additionally, the instant specification fails to provide a definition for variables Y14 and Y15. For purposes of examination, Y14 and Y15 will be interpreted as any atom that may form at least three bonds.
Claim 19 is rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claim 18.
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 16 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.
As discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 16, certain compounds in claim 16 do not properly depend from the formula recited in claim 1. If the compounds are selected, they do not satisfy all the requirements of Formula I. Thus claim 16 does not properly depend from claim 1.
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 § 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 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2023/0123757 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-18, Lee teaches an organic optoelectronic device having high efficiency and long life-span by comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (abstract; ¶ [0214]). Examples of such devices include the organic light emitting diode of Example 1 which comprises an anode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer comprising Compound 1 and Ir(ppy)3, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode (¶ [0196]-[0197]). Compound 1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formulas I and II (see structure on pg. 4).
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
261
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
I:
PNG
media_image6.png
148
211
media_image6.png
Greyscale
II:
PNG
media_image7.png
118
222
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 reads on the claimed Formulas I and II wherein:
R1 and R5 are each a heteroaryl represented by Formula II, and R2 to R4 and R6 to R8 are each hydrogen (claims 3 and 6-7);
X1-X16 are each C (claim 10); and
R is a combination of aryl (phenyl) and heteroaryl (triazine), and RA to RB are each hydrogen (claims 2 and 4).
Accordingly, statement (1) is satisfied.
Per claim 11, Compound 1 contains triazine which is an electron transporting moiety.
Per claim 13, Compound 1 reads on the third structure
PNG
media_image8.png
269
236
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Per claim 14, as the third structure of claim 13 does not contain RE’, RF’, RG’, or RH’, the limitations of claim 14 are met.
Per claim 15, Compound 1 reads on Compound-3-(R5)(R58)(R58).
Per claim 18, Ir(ppy)3 is a metal coordination complex that is a phosphorescent emitter having a metal-carbon bond (see structure on pg. 63).
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 5, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0123757 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches Compound 1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Compound 1 fails to include a silyl group. However, Lee does teach in Chemical Formula 1, *-L1-Ar1 may be represented by
PNG
media_image9.png
46
82
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(as shown in Compound 1) or
PNG
media_image10.png
100
132
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, among others (¶ [0046]).
Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image11.png
284
294
media_image11.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
261
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, 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 phenyl with
PNG
media_image10.png
100
132
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in the location of *-L1-Ar1 of Compound 1, because Lee teaches *-L1-Ar1 may suitably be selected as
PNG
media_image10.png
100
132
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. 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 emission layer of the device of Lee and possess the benefits taught by Lee above. 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
PNG
media_image10.png
100
132
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, because it would have been choosing from a list of groups taught by Lee as suitable for *-L1-Ar1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as in the emission layer of the device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Lee’s Chemical Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Lee 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 claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein R contains a silyl group.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches Compound 1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Lee is silent as to the triplet energy of Compound 1.
The instant specification recites a compound represented by Formula I, and teaches the compound has a triplet energy of at least 2.9 eV (instant ¶ [0053] and [0094]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I are shown on instant pgs. 33-41. Since Lee teaches Compound, which reads on the instant Formula I as described above with respect to claim 1 and has a substantially similar structure to those disclosed by the Applicant on instant pgs. 33-41, the property of having a triplet energy of at least 2.9 eV is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the organic optoelectronic device comprising Compound 1, as described with respect to claim 17.
While Lee does not specifically teach the device comprising Compound 1 is a consumer product, Lee does teach organic light emitting diodes may be used in flat panel displays and display devices (¶ [0006] and [0010]). Flat panel displays and display devices are considered consumer products.
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 include the device of claim 17 comprising the Compound 1 in a flat panel display or display device, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of the flat panel display or display device and the organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound 1 to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0123757 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of So (US 2014/0158993 A1), as evidenced by Parham (US 2017/0084844 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches the organic optoelectronic device including the Compound 1, as described above with respect to claim 18.
As evidenced by Parham, triazine is an electron-acceptor group (see Parham, ¶ [0024]). Accordingly, as Compound 1 contains a triazine group, Compound 1 may be considered an acceptor.
Lee fails to teach the organic optoelectronic device further includes a phosphorescent sensitizer in the emission layer. However, as discussed above, the emission layer further includes Ir(ppy)3.
So teaches a novel molecule including a phosphorescent sensitizer group, a fluorescent acceptor group, and an electron-transport barrier that suppresses triplet-triplet energy transfer between the sensitizer group and acceptor group (abstract and ¶ [0024]). The molecule is included in the organic emissive layer (¶ [0030]). An organic light emitting device including such a molecule provides high efficiency and longer lifetime (abstract).
So teaches the phosphorescent sensitizer groups may include Ir(ppy)3 (¶ [0025]; see compounds on pages 4-6).
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 Ir(ppy)3 as a phosphorescent sensitizer group and to use Compound 1 as an acceptor group in the emission layer in the device of Lee to arrive at a molecule of So, to obtain a device with high efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by So.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2021/0376262 A1), supporting information provided by US 2023/0172064 A1.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-18, Ahn teaches light-emitting devices having low driving voltage and high emission efficiency by including a compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0006] and [0064]). Ahn teaches examples of such devices including that of Example 1, which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer comprising Compound 3 as a host and Ir(pmp)3 as a dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0411]-[0414]; see structure on pg. 89).
1:
PNG
media_image12.png
188
353
media_image12.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image13.png
258
263
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Compound 3 fails to read on the claimed Formulas I and II as the carbazole substituents are not in the 1- and 5-positions or the 1- and 6-positions. However, as shown by Ahn’s Formula 1 above, A11 and A12 are not limited to the 4- and 6-positions.
Given the general formula and teachings of Ahn, 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 3 wherein the carbazole substituents are in the 1- and 5-positions or alternatively, the carbazole substituents are in the 1- and 6-positions. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Ahn’s Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host in the emission layer of the device of Ahn and possess the properties taught by Ahn. 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 3 containing carbazole substituents in the 1- and 5-positions is hereinafter referred to as 1,5-Compound 3. The modified Compound 3 containing carbazole substituents in the 1- and 6-positions is hereinafter referred to as 1,6-Compound 3.
1,5-Compound 3 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formulas I and II (see structure on pg. 89).
1,5-Compound 3:
PNG
media_image14.png
455
402
media_image14.png
Greyscale
I:
PNG
media_image6.png
148
211
media_image6.png
Greyscale
II:
PNG
media_image7.png
118
222
media_image7.png
Greyscale
1,5-Compound 3 reads on the claimed Formulas I and II wherein:
R1 and R5 are each a heteroaryl represented by Formula II, and R2 to R4 and R6 to R8 are each hydrogen (claims 3 and 6-7);
X1-X16 are each C (claim 10); and
R is a combination of aryl (phenyl) and silyl, and RA to RB are each hydrogen (claims 2 and 4-5).
Accordingly, statement (1) is satisfied.
1,6-Compound 3 reads on the claimed Formulas I and II in the same way as 1,5-Compound 3 above except wherein R1 and R6 are each a heteroaryl represented by Formula II, and R2 to R5 and R7 to R8 are each hydrogen. Accordingly, statement (5) is satisfied and the limitations of claim 9 are met.
Per claim 11, 1,5-Compound 3 and 1,6-Compound 3 contain silyl, which is an electron transporting moiety (see ¶ [0187] of US 2023/0172064 A1).
Per claim 13, 1,5-Compound 3 reads on the third structure
PNG
media_image8.png
269
236
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and 1,6-Compound 3 reads on the second structure on pg. 131
PNG
media_image15.png
279
308
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
Per claim 14, with respect to 1,5-Compound 3, as the third structure of claim 13 does not contain RE’, RF’, RG’, or RH’, the limitations of claim 14 are met. With respect to 1,6-Compound 3, as RE’ contains a silyl group, the limitations of claim 14 are met.
Per claim 15, 1,5-Compound 3 reads on Compound-3-(R81)(R58)(R58). 1,6-Compound 3 reads on Compound-28-(R81)(R58)(R58).
Per claim 16, 1,5-Compound 3 reads on the last compound on pg. 149.
Per claim 18, Ir(pmp)3 is a metal coordination complex that is a phosphorescent emitter having a metal-carbon bond (see structure on pg. 92).
Regarding claim 12, Ahn teaches 1,5-Compound 3 and 1,6-Compound 3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Ahn is silent as to the triplet energies of 1,5-Compound 3 and 1,6-Compound 3.
The instant specification recites a compound represented by Formula I, and teaches the compound has a triplet energy of at least 2.9 eV (instant ¶ [0053] and [0094]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I are shown on instant pgs. 33-41. Since Ahn teaches 1,5-Compound 3 and 1,6-Compound 3, which read on the instant Formula I as described above with respect to claim 1 and has an identical or substantially identical structure to compounds disclosed by the Applicant on instant pgs. 33-41, the property of having a triplet energy of at least 2.9 eV is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 20, Ahn teaches the device comprising 1,5-Compound 3, or alternatively 1,6-Compound 3, as described with respect to claim 17.
While Ahn does not specifically teach the device comprising 1,5-Compound 3 or 1,6-Compound 3 is a consumer product, Ahn does teach the device may be applied to various displays, lighting, personal computers, cellphones, digital cameras, and the like (¶ [0310]).
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 include the device of claim 17 comprising 1,5-Compound 3, or alternatively 1,6-Compound 3, in various displays, lighting, personal computers, cellphones, digital cameras, and the like, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of the various displays, lighting, personal computers, cellphones, digital cameras, and the like and the device comprising 1,5-Compound 3 or 1,6-Compound 3 to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2021/0376262 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of So (US 2014/0158993 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Ahn teaches the device including 1,5-Compound 3, or alternatively 1,6-Compound 3, as described above with respect to claim 18.
Ahn fails to teach the device further includes a phosphorescent sensitizer in the emission layer. However, as discussed above, the emission layer further includes Ir(pmp)3 (see structure on pg. 92). Additionally, 1,5-Compound 3 and 1,6-Compound 3 are polyaromatic compounds.
Ir(pmp)3:
PNG
media_image16.png
146
130
media_image16.png
Greyscale
So teaches a novel molecule including a sensitizer group, a acceptor group, and an electron-transport barrier that suppresses triplet-triplet energy transfer between the sensitizer group and acceptor group (abstract). The molecule is included in the organic emissive layer (¶ [0030]). An organic light emitting device including such a molecule provides high efficiency and longer lifetime (abstract).
So teaches the sensitizer groups may be a transition metal complex having a ligand selected as
PNG
media_image17.png
138
120
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0026]). Additionally, So teaches the acceptor group may comprise a polyaromatic compound (¶ [0018]).
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 Ir(pmp)3 as a phosphorescent sensitizer group and to use 1,5-Compound 3, or alternatively 1,6-Compound 3 as an acceptor group in the emission layer in the device of Ahn to arrive at a molecule of So, to obtain a device with high efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by So.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 2016/0190480 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 13-15, Schaefer teaches electroluminescent devices having improved efficiency and stability by comprising compounds of formula I (¶ [0022]-[0025]). Examples of compounds represented by formula I include compound A-12 (pg. 249).
I:
PNG
media_image18.png
101
124
media_image18.png
Greyscale
A-12:
PNG
media_image19.png
6
1
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Compound A-12 fails to read on the claimed Formulas I and II as the
PNG
media_image19.png
6
1
media_image19.png
Greyscale
substituents are not in the 1- and 5-positions or the 1- and 6-positions of the carbazole group. However, as shown by Schaefer’s Formula 1, the substituents are not limited to the 4- and 6-positions.
Given the general formula and teachings of Schaefer, 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 A-12 wherein the
PNG
media_image19.png
6
1
media_image19.png
Greyscale
substituents are in the 1- and 5-positions or alternatively, in the 1- and 6-positions of the carbazole group. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Schaefer’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 host in the emission layer of the device of Schaefer and possess the properties taught by Schaefer. 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 A-12 containing the
PNG
media_image19.png
6
1
media_image19.png
Greyscale
substituents in the 1- and 5-positions is hereinafter referred to as 1,5-compound A-12. The modified compound A-12 containing the
PNG
media_image19.png
6
1
media_image19.png
Greyscale
substituents in the 1- and 6-positions is hereinafter referred to as 1,6-compound A-12.
The 1,6-compound A-12 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formulas I and II.
1,6-compound A-12:
PNG
media_image20.png
450
527
media_image20.png
Greyscale
I:
PNG
media_image6.png
148
211
media_image6.png
Greyscale
II:
PNG
media_image7.png
118
222
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The 1,6-compound A-12 reads on the claimed Formulas I and II wherein:
R1 and R6 are each a heteroaryl represented by Formula III, and R2 to R5 and R7 to R8 are each hydrogen (claims 3 and 6);
X9-X16 are each C (claim 10); and
R is aryl (phenyl), and RA to RB are each hydrogen (claims 2 and 4).
Accordingly, statement (2) is satisfied and the limitations of claim 8 are met.
1,5-compound A-12 reads on the claimed Formulas I and II in the same way as 1,6-compound A-12 above except wherein R1 and R5 are each a heteroaryl represented by Formula II, and R2 to R4 and R6 to R8 are each hydrogen. Accordingly, statement (1) is satisfied and the limitations of claim 7 are met.
Per claim 13, 1,5-compound A-12 reads on the last structure on pg. 126
PNG
media_image21.png
303
248
media_image21.png
Greyscale
and 1,6-compound A-12 reads on the first structure on pg. 130
PNG
media_image22.png
257
339
media_image22.png
Greyscale
.
Per claim 14, as the structures do not contain RE’, RF’, RG’, or RH’, the limitations of claim 14 are met.
Per claim 15, 1,6-compound A-12 reads on Compound-12-(R69)(R58)(R58).
Regarding claim 12, Shaefer teaches 1,5-compound A-12 and 1,6-compound A-12, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Shaefer is silent as to the triplet energies of 1,5-compound A-12 and 1,6-compound A-12.
The instant specification recites a compound represented by Formula I, and teaches the compound has a triplet energy of at least 2.9 eV (instant ¶ [0053] and [0094]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I are shown on instant pgs. 33-41. Since Shaefer teaches 1,5-compound A-12 and 1,6-compound A-12, which read on the instant Formula I as described above with respect to claim 1 and are substantially identical structures to compounds disclosed by the Applicant on instant pgs. 33-41, the property of having a triplet energy of at least 2.9 eV is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 17-18, Schaefer teaches 1,5-compound A-12 and 1,6-compound A-12, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Schaefer fails to teach an example of a device comprising 1,5-compound A-12 or 1,6-compound A-12. However, Schaefer does teach an example of a device including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport and exciton blocking layer, an emission layer comprising emitter compound Ir(dpbic)3 and a compound represented by formula I as a host, an electron transport layer, and a cathode (¶ [0220]-[0225]).
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 1,5-compound A-12 or alternatively 1,6-compound A-12 in the emission layer of the device having the structure above, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Schaefer according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with improved efficiency and stability, as taught by Shaefer. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per claim 18, Ir(dpbic)3 is a metal coordination complex that is a phosphorescent emitter having a metal-carbon bond (see structure on pg. 240).
Regarding claim 20, Shaefer teaches the device comprising 1,5-compound A-12 or 1,6-compound A-12, as described with respect to claim 17.
While Shaefer does not specifically teach the device comprising 1,5-compound A-12 or 1,6-compound A-12 is a consumer product, Shaefer does teach the device may be used in display units such as cellphones, table PCs, laptops, and the like (¶ [0199]).
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 include the device of claim 17 comprising 1,5-compound A-12 or 1,6-compound A-12 in display units such as cellphones, table PCs, laptops, and the like, because one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the elements of the display units and the device comprising 1,5-compound A-12 or 1,6-compound A-12 to predictably maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 5, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 2016/0190480 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn (US 2021/0376262 A1), supporting evidence provided by US 2023/0172064 A1.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 16, Schaefer teaches 1,6-compound A-12 and 1,5-compound A-12, as described above with respect to claim 1.
1,6-compound A-12 and 1,5-compound A-12 fail to include silyl groups.
Ahn teaches light-emitting devices having low driving voltage and high emission efficiency by including a compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0006] and [0064]). Examples of compounds represented by Ahn’s Formula 1 include Compounds 1 and 4 (pgs. 10-11).
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image12.png
188
353
media_image12.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image23.png
66
174
media_image23.png
Greyscale
4:
PNG
media_image24.png
292
208
media_image24.png
Greyscale
1,6-compound A-12 and 1,5-compound A-12 fail to read on Ahn’s Formula 1 as they do not comprise a silyl group or a group represented by Ahn’s Formula 3.
Therefore, in 1,6-compound A-12, 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 group
PNG
media_image19.png
6
1
media_image19.png
Greyscale
in position 6 with a carbazole group, and to substitute the phenyl group with a silyl group
PNG
media_image23.png
66
174
media_image23.png
Greyscale
(as shown in Ahn’s compound 4) to arrive at a compound that reads on Ahn’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Ahn. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with low driving voltage and high emission efficiency, as taught by Ahn.
Alternatively, in 1,5-compound A-12, 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 group
PNG
media_image19.png
6
1
media_image19.png
Greyscale
in position 5 with a carbazole group, and to substitute the phenyl group with a silyl group
PNG
media_image23.png
66
174
media_image23.png
Greyscale
(as shown in Ahn’s compound 1) to arrive at a compound that reads on Ahn’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Ahn. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with low driving voltage and high emission efficiency, as taught by Ahn.
Per claims 5 and 11, the modified 1,5-Compound A-12 and the modified 1,6-Compound A-12 each contain silyl in the location of the claimed R, wherein silyl is an electron transporting moiety (see ¶ [0187] of US 2023/0172064 A1).
Additionally, the modified compound 1,6-compound A-12 reads on the second claimed compound on pg. 151 of claim 16.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 2016/0190480 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of So (US 2014/0158993 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Schaefer teaches the device 1,6-compound A-12 and 1,5-compound A-12, as described above with respect to claim 18.
Schaefer fails to teach the device further includes a phosphorescent sensitizer in the emission layer. However, 1,6-compound A-12 and 1,5-compound A-12 are polyaromatic compounds.
So teaches a novel molecule including a phosphorescent sensitizer group, a acceptor group, and an electron-transport barrier that suppresses triplet-triplet energy transfer between the sensitizer group and acceptor group (abstract). The molecule is included in the organic emissive layer (¶ [0030]). An organic light emitting device including such a molecule provides high efficiency and longer lifetime (abstract).
So teaches the sensitizer groups may be a transition metal complex such as Ir(ppy)3 (¶ [0026]; see compounds on pgs. 4-6). Additionally, So teaches the acceptor group may comprise a polyaromatic compound (¶ [0018]).
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 further include Ir(ppy)3 as a phosphorescent sensitizer group and to use 1,5-Compound A-12, or alternatively 1,6-Compound A-12 as an acceptor group in the emission layer in the device of Schaefer to arrive at a molecule of So, to obtain a device with high efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by So.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights