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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on December 1, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on September 7, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 7, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds in the specification, particularly those on pages 65 – 73, 80, 81, 83 – 86, 92, 111 – 115 and 148 are low resolution, which makes it difficult to determine the atoms and bonding patterns of the compounds.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds in the claims are low resolution, which makes it difficult to determine the atoms and bonding patterns of the compounds.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bi (CN115073501A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 13 and 14, Bi teaches:
A fused polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
286
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Bi teaches compound BD1-81
PNG
media_image2.png
162
148
media_image2.png
Greyscale
on Page 14. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 and X2 are N(Ra); one Ra is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring forming carbon atoms, the other Ra is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring forming carbon atoms, wherein R5 and R1 are combined with an adjacent group (interpreted as Ra) to form a ring; n2 and n3 are integers of 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist. As claim 14 defines R2 but does not require that n2 is an integer of at least 1, Bi anticipates claim 14.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 7 and 13 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (JP2021063074A, using the provided English language translation).
As per claims 1 – 7, and 13 – 17, Hatakeyama teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0643]: “100 Organic electroluminescent element 101 Substrate 102 Anode 103 Hole injection layer 104 Hole transport layer 105 Light-emitting layer 106 Electron transport layer 107 Electron injection layer 108 Cathode.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
256
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Hatakeyama teaches compounds of Formula (2)
PNG
media_image4.png
224
230
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein the compound contains at least one cyano group ([0014]). Hatakeyama teaches that cyano group substituent provides excellent efficiency and device lifetime (Abstract). A particular compound taught by Hatakeyama is compound 1-9
PNG
media_image5.png
146
188
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on page 77. This compound does not contain the carbazole substituents as required by the claimed Formula. However, Hatakeyama also teaches compound 1-207
PNG
media_image6.png
178
206
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on Page 88, which contains a cyano-substituted polycyclic compound with carbazole groups in the claimed positions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 1-8 of Hatakeyama to include two carbazole groups in the positions shown in compound 1-207 and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 and X2 are N(Ra), Ra is a substituted aryl group; one R2 is a cyano group and another is carbazole group, represented by Formula A-2 in claims 2 and 14; n2 is an integer of 2; R3 is an unsubstituted alkyl group of 4 carbon atoms; n3 is 1; n1, n4 and n5 are all integers of 0 so that corresponding R groups do not exist. The compound reads on claimed Formula 2-1 in claims 3 and 15; Formula 3-2 in claims 4 and 16; Formula 4-2 in claim 5; Formula 5 in claims 6 and 17; and Formula 6-2 in claim 7. & [0247]: “In the present invention, a host material and, for example, a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by the above general formula (1) as a dopant material can be used as the material for the light-emitting layer.”)
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of OLEDs with excellent efficiency and device lifetime (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 8 – 10 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (JP2021063074A, using the provided English language translation) as applied to claims 1 – 17 and 13 – 17 above and further in view of Geum (US20210277026A1).
As per claims 8 – 10 and 18 – 20, Hatakeyama teaches compounds wherein the aryl off of the nitrogen atom is substituted with one or more aryl groups, such as compound 1-64
PNG
media_image7.png
170
168
media_image7.png
Greyscale
on Page 82. Furthermore, Geum teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image8.png
114
326
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). Geum teaches specific formulae such as 2-1-1
PNG
media_image9.png
198
320
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0178]). Geum teaches that by including a substituent with a large steric hindrance around boron enhances the stability of the compound and increases the service life characteristic of the device including it ([0038]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the particular biphenylene substituent off of the nitrogen atoms in the compounds of Hatakeyama because Hatakeyama teaches compounds with the claimed substituent and because Geum teaches these substituents enhance the stability of the compound and increase the service life characteristic ([0038]). When the previously modified compound above is further modified to include this particular substituent, the compound reads on Formula X-1 of claims 8 and 18 and Formula 7-1 of claims 9 and 19. This compound is the same as compound 97
PNG
media_image10.png
126
126
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in claims 10 and 20.
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of OLEDs with excellent efficiency and device lifetime (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). It further would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art to modify the compounds of Hatakeyama to include the specifically claimed group motivated by a desire to predictably enhance the stability of the compound and increase the service life characteristic as taught by Geum ([0038]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (JP2021063074A, using the provided English language translation) as applied to claims 1 – 7 and 13 – 17 and further in view of Yoon (US20200308209A1).
As per claims 11 and 12, Hatakeyama does not teach:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a second compound represented by Formula HT-1
PNG
media_image11.png
212
266
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a fourth compound represented by Formula D-1
PNG
media_image12.png
326
330
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches a light emitting device with an emission layer that includes a first host, a first dopant and a second dopant (Abstract). Yoon teaches that the second dopant may include a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 11(4)
PNG
media_image13.png
162
294
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. This polycyclic compound is similar to the polycyclic compound of Hatakeyama. Yoon teaches that the first dopant is a metal complex that can be selected from
PNG
media_image14.png
146
318
media_image14.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on claimed Formula PS wherein Q1 to Q4 are each C; C1 and C4 are each a substituted heterocycle having 7 ring forming carbon atoms; C2 and C3 are each an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; L12 is *-O-*; L11 and L13 are direct linkages; b1 to b3 are 1; R61 and R64 are both an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom and d1 and d4 is 1; both R62 and R63 are hydrogen. Yoon teaches that the emission layer may contain both a first and second host, wherein the first host is a hole transporting compound and the second host may be an electron transporting compound so that the first and second host materials form an exciplex ([0123]). Yoon teaches that the first host may be selected from compounds including compound H19
PNG
media_image15.png
156
296
media_image15.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula HT-1 wherein L1 is a direct linkage; Ar1 is a substituted arylene group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; Ya is a direct linkage; A1 to A8 are all C(R51) where R51 is a hydrogen atom. Yoon teaches that by using this particular combination of materials in a light emitting layer, an OLED can be produced that has low driving voltage, high efficiency and improved lifespan ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light emitting layer of Hatakeyama with a host materials and an additional dopant material, wherein the compounds are of the claimed Formulas, motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED that has low driving voltage, high efficiency and improved lifespan as taught by Yoon ([0005]).
Claims 1 – 7 and 11 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US20230363276A1) in view of Hatakeyama (JP2021063074A, using the provided English language translation).
As per claims 1 – 7, and 13 – 17, Fleetham teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0158]: “Device 100 may include a substrate 110, an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, a hole blocking layer 140, an electron transport layer 145, an electron injection layer 150, a protective layer 155, a cathode 160, and a barrier layer 170.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
256
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fleetham teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image16.png
156
194
media_image16.png
Greyscale
([0006]). Fleetham teaches that in some embodiments, a bulky substituent comprising at least one 6-membered aromatic ring is bonded to the atom directly next to the atom bonded to the nitrile group and that the bulky substituent can be a carbazole ([0091 – 0093]). Fleetham teaches a particular compound 8-(R1)(R1)(R26)(R26) in paragraph ([0107]), in which the polycyclic group contains two cyano groups with carbazole substituents in an ortho position to them. While compound 8-(R1)(R1)(R26)(R26) teaches oxygen atoms instead of the claimed N-R groups, Hatakeyama similarly teaches that cyano substituents on boron-based polycyclic groups
PNG
media_image4.png
224
230
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0014]). Hatakeyama teaches that X1 and X2 ca be selected from O or N-R ([0015]). A particular compound taught by Hatakeyama is compound 1-9
PNG
media_image5.png
146
188
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on page 77. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 8-(R1)(R1)(R26)(R26) of Fleetham replace the oxygen atoms with two N-R groups wherein the R groups is a group such as a substituted phenyl group, because Hatakeyama teaches that oxygen and nitrogen are functionally equivalent atoms in boron-based polycyclic groups containing cyano groups. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 and X2 are N(Ra), Ra is a substituted aryl group; one R2 is a cyano group and another is carbazole group, represented by Formula A-2 in claims 2 and 14; n2 is an integer of 2; n1, n3, n4 and n5 are all integers of 0 so that corresponding R groups do not exist. The compound reads on claimed Formula 2-1 in claims 3 and 15; Formula 3-4 in claims 4 and 16; Formula 4-1 in claim 5; Formula 5 in claims 6 and 17; and Formula 6-1 in claim 7. & [0144]: “In yet another aspect, the OLED of the present disclosure may also comprise an emissive region containing a compound as disclosed in the above compounds section of the present disclosure.”)
As per claim 11, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a second compound represented by Formula HT-1
PNG
media_image11.png
212
266
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(Fleetham teaches host material that can be used in combination with the claimed polycyclic compound include
PNG
media_image17.png
150
270
media_image17.png
Greyscale
([0200]) which reads on Formula HT-1 wherein L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; Ar1 is a substituted arylene group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; Ya is a direct linkage; A1 to A8 are all C(R51) where R51 is a hydrogen atom.)
As per claim 12, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a fourth compound represented by Formula D-1
PNG
media_image12.png
326
330
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(Fleetham teaches that the compound may be used in an emissive layer with a phosphorescent material ([0112]). Fleetham teaches that the phosphorescent material may be selected from compounds of
PNG
media_image18.png
172
292
media_image18.png
Greyscale
([0134]). This compound reads on claimed Formula D-1 wherein Q1 to Q4 are each C; C1 and C4 are each a substituted heterocycle having 7 ring forming carbon atoms; C2 and C3 are each an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms.)
Claims 8 – 10 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US20230363276A1) and Hatakeyama (JP2021063074A, using the provided English language translation) as applied to claims 1 – 7 and 11 – 17 above and further in view of Geum (US20210277026A1).
As per claims 8 – 10 and 18 – 20, the prior art combination teaches compounds wherein the aryl off of the nitrogen atom is substituted with one or more aryl groups, such as compound 1-64
PNG
media_image7.png
170
168
media_image7.png
Greyscale
on Page 82 of Hatakeyama. Furthermore, Geum teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image8.png
114
326
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). Geum teaches specific formulae such as 2-1-1
PNG
media_image9.png
198
320
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0178]). Geum teaches that by including a substituent with a large steric hindrance around boron enhances the stability of the compound and increases the service life characteristic of the device including it ([0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the particular biphenylene substituent off of the nitrogen atoms in the compounds of the prior art combination because Geum teaches these substituents enhance the stability of the compound and increase the service life characteristic ([0038]). When the previously modified compound above is further modified to include this particular substituent, the compound reads on Formula X-1 of claims 8 and 18 and Formula 7-1 of claims 9 and 19. This compound is the same as compound 73
PNG
media_image19.png
144
144
media_image19.png
Greyscale
in claims 10 and 20.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights