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 .
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 2-7, 11, 12 and 16-18 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.
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).
It is noted the portions of the claims highlighted below refers to the entirety of the portion, not just the beginning and end portions provided in quotes. In other words, the broader and narrower limitations are in reference to the recitations within the line and page numbers highlighted. The portions of the claim in quotes are representative of the beginning and end of the portion of the claim at issue.
Claim 2 recites, on page 75, lines 18-24, the broad recitation “the first compound, L0 is, at each occurrence … having 3 to 20 carbon atoms, or combinations thereof,” and the claim also recites, on page 75, line 25 through page 76, line 5, “preferably, L0 is, at each occurrence … substituted or unsubstituted pyrenylene, or combinations thereof” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 3 recites, on page 76, lines 6-7, the broad recitation “the first compound has a structure represented by any one of Formula 1-1 to Formula 1-14,” and the claim also recites, on page 78, lines 16-17, “preferably, the first compound has a structure represented by Formula 1-1, Formula 1-3, Formula 1-5, Formula 1-6, Formula 1-9 or Formula 1-11” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 4 recites, on page 78, lines 19-21, the broad recitation “in the first compound, R is … having 3 to 30 carbon atoms, or combinations thereof,” and the claim also recites two different narrower statements, including: “preferably, R is … substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 30 carbon atoms” on page 78, lines 22-24; and “more preferably, R is … substituted or unsubstituted dibenzothienyl” on page 78, lines 25-28, which are the narrower statements of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 5 recites, on page 78, line 29 through page 79, line 4, the broad recitation “in the first compound, R’, R1, R2, Rx and Ry are … substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 30 carbon atoms, or combination thereof,” and the claim also recites, on page 79, lines 6-9, “preferably, in the first compound, R’, R1, R2, Rx and Ry are … substituted or unsubstituted aryl having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, or combination thereof,” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 7 recites, on page 79, lines 12-14, the broad recitation “in the first compound, Ar2 is selected from … substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 20 carbon atoms, or combinations thereof,” and the claim also recites, on page 79, lines 15-22, “preferably in the first compound, Ar2 is selected from … substituted or unsubstituted pyrenyl, or combinations thereof,” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 11 recites, on page 91, lines 10-12 the broad recitation “the second compound has a structure represented by any one of Formula 2-a to Formula 2-h and Formula 3-a,” and the claim also recites, on page 92, lines 26-27 “preferably, the second compound has a structure represented by any one of Formula 2-a to Formula 2-c, Formula 2-e, and Formula 3-a” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 11 recites, on page 92, line 10-24, the broad recitation “Rw is … a phosphino group, and combinations thereof,” and the claim also recites, on page 92, line 28 through page 93, line 2, “more preferably, Rw is … substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 30 carbon atoms, or combinations thereof” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 12 recites, on page 93, lines 9-11, the broad recitation “wherein ArE is … substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 30 carbon atoms,” and the claim also recites, on page 94, line 12 “more preferably, ArE is … phenanthryl,” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 12 recites, on page 93, lines 12-13, the broad recitation “E is … selected from O, S or Se,” and the claim also recites, on page 94, lines 5-6 “preferably E is … selected from O or S” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 12 recites, on page 93, line 14 through page 94, line 3, the broad recitation “Re is … a phosphino group, and combinations thereof,” and the claim also recites, on page 94, lines 6-11 “Re is … substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 30 carbon atoms, and combinations thereof” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 16 recites, on page 115, lines 15-19 the broad recitation “in Formula 4-1-1, … selected from CRv1,” and the claim also recites, on page 115, lines 25-27 “more preferably, in Formula 4-1-1, … selected from CRv1” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 16 recites, on page 115, lines 20-24, the broad recitation “preferably, Rv and Rv1 are … substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 30 carbon atoms, and combinations thereof,” and the claim also recites, on page 115, lines 27-29, “Rv and Rv1 are … substituted or unsubstituted aryl having 6 to 30 carbon atoms” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 17 recites, on page 115, lines 30-33, the broad recitation “in the third compound, Ar41 and Ar42 are … substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl having 3 to 25 carbon atoms, or combinations thereof,” and the claim also recites, on page 115, line 34 through page 116, line 7, “preferably, Ar41 and Ar42 are … substituted or unsubstituted indolocarbazolyl, or combinations thereof” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 18 recites, on page 116, lines 8-11, the broad recitation “in the third compound, L41 to L43 are … substituted or unsubstituted heteroarylene having 3 to 20 carbon atoms, or combinations thereof,” and the claim also recites, on page 116, lines 12-14, “preferably L41 to L43 are … substituted or unsubstituted biphenylylene, or combinations thereof” which is the narrower statement of the range/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. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have the claim require only the broader recitation, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7, 11, 12 and 16-18, the phrases "preferably" and/or "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to not have the claim require the elements recited as being preferable, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 6 is included in this rejection based on its dependency from claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8-10, 13-15, 19-21 are allowed.
Claims 2-7, 11, 12 and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record Kim (US 2017/0194569) and Ma (US 2023/0269958 being used as the English language equivalent translation for WO 2022/213905 A and CN 113735719 A) while broadly teaching the limitations of the presently claimed invention, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as presently claimed in claim 1. Specifically, Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode 110, cathode 190, and organic layer 150 provided therebetween, where the organic layer comprises multiple layers, including an emission layer (corresponding to the claimed second organic layer comprising the second and third compounds) and an electron blocking layer (corresponding to the claimed first organic layer) (abstract, paragraphs [0043] – [0046], [0206] – [0214], and [0411], and Figure 3). Kim teaches the electron blocking layer may include materials represented by Formulas 3-1 to 3-3 (paragraph [0251]). Kim teaches Formulas 3-1 to 3-3 are general structural formulas including a wide variety of constituent components to be substituted into said Formulas 3-1 to 3-3. Kim teaches the third compound (compound represented by Formulas 3-1 to 3-3) may be represented by any one of Compounds E-101 to E-270 (paragraph [0198]). Kim also teaches the third compound represented by any one of Formulae 3-1 to 3-3 may effectively transfer energy as a dopant included in an emission layer, because these compounds have fast electron transporting characteristics and a relatively high triplet energy level (paragraph [0199]). Kim teaches when the third compound represented by any one of Formulae 3-1 to 3-3 is used in a hole transport region, electron leakage from an emission layer to a hole transport layer may be reduced, which allows most of excitons formed in the emission layer to contribute to emission, consequently leading to an increase in the efficiency of an organic light-emitting device. Furthermore, the deterioration of organic layer materials caused by electron leakage may be reduced, and the current required for producing the same luminance may decrease, consequently improving the lifespan of the organic light-emitting device (paragraph [0203]). The compounds from the Compounds E-101 to E-270 list which are chemically closest, structurally, to the claim is E-126 and E-195. However, E-126 and E-195 each illustrate a silicon containing fluorene portion of the chemical structure is linked to the nitrogen atom on the benzene ring portion of said silicon containing fluorene portion. In other words, Kim is deficient in teaching or suggesting the claimed *-N-L0-Si-* linkage portion in claimed Formula 1. Ma teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode 100, a cathode 200, an electron blocking layer 322, etc. (abstract, Figure 1, and paragraphs [0024] and [0085]). Ma teaches the electron blocking layer comprises an organic compound, where the organic compound is selected from a list of Compounds 1-467 (paragraphs [0081] – [0083]). The compounds from the Compounds 1-467 list which are chemically closest, structurally, to the claim is Compounds 92-94, which corresponds to the claimed *-N-L0-Si-* linkage portion in claimed Formula 1. Ma also teaches the organic compound of the present disclosure is a triarylamine structure including 1,8-diphenylnaphthalene group, cycloalkane, and a dibenzo five-membered ring at the same time, in this structure, the 1,8-diphenylnaphthalene group has a better electron blocking ability, and the triarylamine can increase conjugation of the molecule, effectively improving the efficiency while enhancing the film-forming properties of the molecule, and in addition, the cycloalkane structure with large steric hindrance effectively improves the stacking effect of the molecule, and increases the rigidity and thermal stability of the molecule as a whole, thus increasing the service life of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph [0017]). However, E-126 from Kim does not include the 1,8-diphenylnaphthalene group, or dibenzo five-membered ring highlighted by Ma. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that no motivation is present in the prior art for providing a piecemeal reconstruction of the chemical structure of Kim’s compound(s) by Ma to arrive at the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights