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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, 13-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2021/020928), where Kim et al. (US 2023/0077439) (hereafter “Kim”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-16, and 19, Kim teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0818]-[0823]) (claims 13-15). Kim teaches the light emitting layer comprises a host and a blue emitting dopant and that the amount of the host is greater than that dopant (paragraphs [0818]-[0823]) (claims 14-16 and 19). Kim teaches that the dopant can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
227
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
238
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
216
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image4.png
201
259
media_image4.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0365] and [0818]-[0823]) (claims 1, 2, and 4-11).
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2021/0104682) (hereafter “Shin”) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2021/020928), where Kim et al. (US 2023/0077439) (hereafter “Kim”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1-19, Shin teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0335]-[0346]) (claims 13-15). Shin teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material, a phosphorescent dopant (sensitizer), and a fluorescent dopant that emits blue light and the amount of the host material is greater than both dopant materials (between 400-490nm) (paragraphs [0030] and [0337]) (claims 14-19). Shin teaches that the fluorescent dopant can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image5.png
159
177
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
215
184
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
205
212
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image8.png
245
181
media_image8.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0101] and [0335]-[0346]).
Shin does not teach where the fluorescent dopant comprises a group that meets formula 2.
Kim teaches an electroluminescent device comprising similar boron fluorescent dopants (paragraphs [0002] and [0010]). Kim teaches that adding a group with a cycloalkene ring to the compound can improve the stability of the compounds due to the lowering the sublimation temperature (paragraph [0050]). This can lead to an improvement in the lifetime and efficiency of the device with the compound (paragraph [0050]). Kim teaches that the group with the cycloalkyl group can be attached to the N atom in the boron heterocyclic compound, such as in
PNG
media_image2.png
238
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluorescent dopants of Shin so the phenyl groups are substituted with
PNG
media_image9.png
77
86
media_image9.png
Greyscale
groups as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to improve the stability of the compound and improve the efficiency and lifetime of the device. This would lead to compounds that meet applicant’s claimed compounds 6 and 8 as examples.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021/020928), where Kim et al. (US 2023/0077439) (hereafter “Kim”) is used as the English equivalent, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-16, and 19 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2019/0341557).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Kim does not teach where the light emitting layer further comprises a sensitizer.
Lin teaches adding a sensitizer to a layer can help transfer energy to the emitting dopant in electroluminescent devices (paragraph [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim so the emitting layer comprises a sensitizer as taught by Lin. The motivation would have been to increase the transfer of energy to the emitting dopant.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021/020928), where Kim et al. (US 2023/0077439) (hereafter “Kim”) is used as the English equivalent, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-16, and 19 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0179238) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 20, Kim does not teach where emitting dopant is used in a diagnostic composition.
Lee teaches electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer (paragraphs [0332]-[0334]). Lee teaches that the light emitting dopant material can as be used in diagnostic composition (paragraphs [0007], [0046], [0272], and [0273]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to use the emitting dopant of Kim in a diagnostic composition as taught by Lee. Both Kim and Lee teach emitting dopants for use in the light emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, but only Lee teaches that the materials can also be used in diagnostic composition. Given the similarity between the Lee and Kim it would have been obvious to try to use the emitting material of Kim in a diagnostic material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2021/0104681) teaches a light emitting layer comprising two hosts, a sensitizer, and a boron heterocyclic compound as the emitting material.
Sim et al. (US 2023/0146532) teaches compounds that meets the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights