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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least a chemical structure of Formula 1 should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a number of the chemical structure formulae are of poor resolution, see for examples the structures on pages 5, 37, 39-42, 57-60, and 62-63.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claims 2-7, it is suggested that "are the same as defined Formula 1" be changed to "are the same as defined in Formula 1 in claim 1" or the like for ease of reading;
in claims 14-19, it is suggested that "are the same as defined Formula 1" be changed to "are the same as defined in Formula 1 in claim 13" or the like for ease of reading; and
in claims 3-7 and 15-19, at least one of the chemical structure formulae are of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. KR-20220047017-A and see related US-20230069900-A1 referred to herein as "Maruyama".
Regarding claims 1-10 and 12-20, Maruyama teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an organic layer located between a first electrode and a second electrode and including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a host compound, a first dopant compound, and a second dopant compound, wherein the second dopant compound is represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0007]), and wherein light-emitting dopant includes a thermally activated delayed fluorescence compound (¶ [0285]). Maruyama teaches that an organic light-emitting device including the second dopant compound represented by Formula 1 has an improved lifespan characteristics (¶ [0121]). Maruyama teaches examples of the second dopant compound represented by Formula 1 in paragraph [0120] including
PNG
media_image1.png
400
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 44).
Maruyama does not exemplify a second dopant compound represented by Formula 1 that meets the claimed Formula 1. However, several of the compounds in paragraph [0120] are positional isomers of the compound of the claimed Formula 1. For example, the compound shown above, which shows eight Ar1 phenyl groups arranged on the core A such that two phenyl groups are substituted on each of rings Cy1 an Cy2 and two phenyl groups are substituted on each of rings Cy4 and Cy5 instead of one phenyl group substituted on each of rings Cy1 an Cy2 and three phenyl groups substituted on each of rings Cy4 and Cy5.
Given the general formula and teachings of Maruyama, 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 the compound of Maruyama wherein one phenyl group is substituted on each of rings Cy1 an Cy2 and three phenyl groups are substituted on each of rings Cy4 and Cy5. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Maruyama's Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the second dopant in the emission layer of the device of Maruyama and possess the properties of improved lifespan characteristics taught by Maruyama. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP § 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP § 2144.09 II.
The modified compounds of Maruyama meet claimed Formula 1 and one of the modified compounds corresponds to the claimed compound A-1.
The device comprising the modified compound of Maruyama meets claims 1-10 and 12-20.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. KR-20220047017-A and see related US-20230069900-A1 referred to herein as "Maruyama" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 (hereinafter "Li").
Regarding claim 11, Maruyama teaches the device comprising the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Maruyama does not specifically disclose a compound as above further comprising a deuterium substituent. However, the general formula of Maruyama allows for deuterium substitution (¶ [0014]).
Li teaches that a deuterated organic system has better thermal stability, and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices (¶ [0009]) and deuterated organic semiconductor materials exhibit improved performance including brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime compared to non-deuterated organic semiconductor materials (Abstract, ¶ [0023], and [0077]).
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 compound in the device of Maruyama to include at least one deuterium, based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime, as taught by Li.
Claims 1-2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN-115772185-A (hereinafter "Liu-CN", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Liu-MT").
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 13-14, Liu teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a sequentially set on the substrate positive electrode, a hole transmission region, a light emitting layer, an electronic transmission region, a negative electrode wherein the light-emitting layer comprises one or more of a polycyclic compound represented by formula I (Liu-MT, page 6 of 16, lines 12-15 and page 2 of 16, lines 17-18). The organic OLED device prepared using the polycyclic compound has a lower voltage, higher external quantum efficiency, and service life (page 7 of 16 lines 1-3). Liu teaches examples of the polycyclic compound including the compound
PNG
media_image2.png
239
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Liu-CN, page 13).
Liu does not exemplify a polycyclic compound represented by Formula I that meets the claimed Formula 1. For example, the compound shown above differs from the claimed compound in that the position corresponding to the claimed R3 is an alkyl group instead of a hydrogen atom, deuterium atom, or group represented by claimed Formula 2. However, Liu teaches, in the Formula I, X may represent NR6 (Liu-MT, page 2 of 16, lines 24) and R6 may be a substituted or unsubstituted C6 aryl group (Liu-MT, page 3 of 16, lines 17-21). Additionally, Liu teaches examples where X is NR6 and R6 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, see for examples Liu-CN, page 13.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Liu, 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 substituted C6 aryl group at the position R6 in Liu's Formula I for an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, because Liu 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 in the light-emitting layer of the device of Liu and possess the beneficial properties of a lower voltage, higher external quantum efficiency, and service life taught by Liu. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound meets the claimed Formulae 1 and 3.
Therefore, the device comprising the modified compound of Liu meets claims 1-2 and 13-14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kushida et al. WO-2025037636-A1 recites boron-containing polycyclic compounds with a plurality of phenyl substituents including
PNG
media_image3.png
286
261
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 88).
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