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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202110370887.3, filed on 04/07/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/22/2024 and 09/02/2024 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 10/09/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 2020/0203617 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/040298 A1, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Duan discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer including a triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) material as a host, and a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) material as a dye.
Duan gives an example of a suitable TTA host material in compound H22 (page 7), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound H22 is analogous to the instantly claimed organic compound, H.
Duan also gives an example of a suitable TADF dye material in compound T-100 (page 29), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
248
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound T-100 is analogous to the instantly claimed emitter, E.
However, while Duan teaches that any organic material layer of the device may further comprise a resin (polymer, paragraph 0032), Duan does not teach nor fairly suggest a reason to include a resin compound, nor what kind of resin compound should be used.
In analogous art, Hatakeyama teaches a composition for forming a light emitting layer in an organic electroluminescence device comprising a host material, a TADF compound, and a boron-containing compound (paragraph 0001).
Hatakeyama teaches that a light-emitting composition may comprise a binder, and that the binder forms a film and bonds the film to the substrate. The binder may additionally serve to dissolve, disperse, and bind other components in the composition of the light emitting layer.
Hatakeyama gives examples of suitable binders, which include polyurethanes (paragraph 0330, line 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyurethane binder in the light emitting composition of Duan in order to help bond the film to the substrate, while also helping to dissolve, disperse, and bind the components of the light emitting composition.
Examiner is interpreting the compounds above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as a preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 14 (emitter E), 28 (organic compound H), and 32 (polyurethane resin) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Duan and Hatakeyama read on the claims.
Duan and Hatakeyama are silent to the emission spectrum of the organic compound H being on the short wavelength side of and partially overlapping the absorption spectrum of the emitter E, and that emitter E possesses a FWHM of < 55 nm. However, these properties are considered to be inherent to the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the composition is used to form a light emitting layer in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Duan and Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the works of Duan and Hatakeyama were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 2, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 1, and the emitter E comprises a structure of instant formula (1) when Ar1-Ar5 are a C6 aromatic (benzene) group, X1 and X2 are not present, both of Xa are a nitrogen atom, Ya is a boron atom, and all R characters are hydrogen atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 3, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 2, and the emitter E has the structure of instant formula (1b), as pictured above.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 2, and Ar1-Ar5 are a C6 aromatic (benzene) group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 1, and the organic compound H comprises a perylene group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 1, and the organic resin is a polyurethane, which is a thermoset.
With respect to claim 8, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 1, as discussed above.
When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (See MPEP 2143).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hatakeyama also teaches that the composition for forming the light-emitting layer may comprise a surfactant to control the uniformity of the film surface (paragraph 0332), and examples of suitable surfactants include polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether (paragraph 0333, line 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an ether-based solvent in the formulation in order to control the uniformity of the film surface, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 11, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 1, and Duan also teaches that the formulation is suitable for use in forming a light emitting layer in an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the formulation to form a light emitting functional layer in an organic light emitting device, as taught by Duan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 2020/0203617 A1) and Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/040298 A1, using the provided translation for references), as applied above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0399240 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Duan and Hatakeyama teach the formulation of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Duan nor Hatakeyama teach the use of the compound in a color conversion layer.
In analogous art, Han teaches compounds for use in a light-emitting device and the device of Han comprises a first electrode (an anode, paragraph 0191), an organic light-emitting layer (an interlayer, paragraph 0198), a second electrode (a cathode, paragraph 0347), a color conversion layer (paragraph 0361), and an encapsulation layer (paragraph 0387), in that order.
Han teaches that the color conversion area may include a first area emitting a first color light (paragraph 0365, lines 1-2). In this respect, Han teaches that a color conversion may be a light emitting layer. Han also teaches that the first area may absorb a first color and emit a different color (paragraph 0366).
Duan and Hatakeyama are silent to the compositions ability to absorb 90 % or more of the light emitting by the organic light-emitting layer, and that the emission spectrum of the organic compound H is on the short wavelength side of and partially overlapping the absorption spectrum of the emitter E, and that emitter E possesses a FWHM of < 55 nm. However, these properties are considered to be inherent to the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the composition is used to form a light emitting layer in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Duan and Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the works of Duan and Hatakeyama were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emitting layer of Duan and Hatakeyama as a color conversion layer in a device with the claimed structure in order to alter the wavelength of light emitted from the device, as taught by Han, whereupon a composition with the claimed properties would naturally flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights