DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the phrase “at least one of a first host, a second host, and a phosphorescent sensitizer”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of a first host, a second host, or a phosphorescent sensitizer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the term “*-(L53)ab3-*’”. Based on the formula recited in the claim:
PNG
media_image1.png
208
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
this term appears to be a typographical error of “*-(L53)b3-*’”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the phrase “Condition ix”. Given that the claim recites eight (8) conditions and not nine (9) conditions, Applicants are advised to amend “Condition ix” to recite “Condition viii”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recited Condition vii as “a1 to a3 are each 0, and b1 to b3 are each 1”; and Condition ix as “a1 to a3 are each 1, and b1 to b3 are each 0”. Both of these conditions render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 20 depends from claim 12, and claim 12 requires that “a sum of a1 to a3 is 1 or more” and that “a sum of b1 to b3 is 1 or more”. Condition vii requires that a1 to a3 are each 0, i.e. the sum of a1 to a3 is 0; and Condition ix requires that b1 to b3 are each 0, i.e. the sum of b1 to b3 is 0. Thus, both Conditions vii and ix require sums of a1 to a3 and b1 to b3, respectively, that are excluded from claim 12.
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 1-4, 7-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Dück (US 2021/0013413).
Regarding claim 1, Dück discloses an organic light device comprising an anode layer, i.e. a first electrode, a cathode layer, i.e. a second electrode, facing the first electrode; and an emitting layer, i.e. an interlayer, disposed between the electrodes ([0482]-[9492]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following compound ([0436], [0456], and Page 42):
PNG
media_image2.png
675
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where “Ph” is phenyl and tBu is tert-butyl. This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
256
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 is B;
rings CY1 to CY3 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
R1 and R2 are C5 carbocyclic groups substituted with LD;
LD is tert-butyl, i.e. a C4 alkyl group;
R4 and R5 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
Z3 is a carbazole group, i.e. a p-electron rich C12 cyclic group substituted with R10b;
R10b is phenyl, i.e. a C6 carbocyclic group, substituted with a triazine substituted phenyl group, i.e. C15 heterocyclic group;
a1 and a2 are both one (1);
a3 is zero (0);
a1 + a + a3 is two (2);
a4 and a5 are two (2);
b1 and b2 are zero (0);
b3 is one (1); and
b1 + b2 + b3 is one (1).
Regarding claim 2, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the emission, or interlayer, comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 3, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the emission comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 4, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the emission layer comprises another host compound ([0452]).
Regarding claim 7, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the compound emits light in the 450 to 470 nm, i.e. in the blue light range ([0009]). Accordingly, a light emitting layer comprising this compound will emit blue light as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 8, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the first electrode is an anode and the second is a cathode. Additionally, the device comprises the following layers:
anode / hole injection layer / hole transport layer / emitting layer / hole blocking layer / electron transport layer and electron injection layer / cathode.
Accordingly, the device comprises a hole transport region, i.e. hole injection and hole transport layers, between the anode and the emitting layer; and an electron transport region, i.e. hole blocking, electron transport, and electron injection layers, between the emitting layer and the cathode.
Regarding claim 9, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, the reference discloses an electronic apparatus as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 12, Dück discloses the following compound ([Page 42).
PNG
media_image2.png
675
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where “Ph” is phenyl and tBu is tert-butyl. This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
256
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 is B;
rings CY1 to CY3 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
R1 and R2 are C5 carbocyclic groups substituted with LD;
LD is tert-butyl, i.e. a C4 alkyl group;
R4 and R5 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
Z3 is a carbazole group, i.e. a p-electron rich C12 cyclic group substituted with R10b;
R10b is phenyl, i.e. a C6 carbocyclic group, substituted with a triazine substituted phenyl group, i.e. C15 heterocyclic group;
a1 and a2 are both one (1);
a3 is zero (0);
a1 + a + a3 is two (2);
a4 and a5 are two (2);
b1 and b2 are zero (0);
b3 is one (1); and
b1 + b2 + b3 is one (1).
Regarding claim 13, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Y1 is B.
Regarding claim 14, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, ring CY1 corresponds to Formula CY1-2:
PNG
media_image4.png
142
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 15, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, ring CY2 corresponds to Formula CY2-2:
PNG
media_image5.png
148
112
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 16, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, ring CY3 corresponds to Formula CY3-2:
PNG
media_image6.png
130
134
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 17, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, R1 and R2 correspond to Formula 1-2-9:
PNG
media_image7.png
116
150
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 18, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, LD is tert-butyl.
Regarding claim 19, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above the moieties:
PNG
media_image8.png
70
136
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
68
148
media_image9.png
Greyscale
correspond to Formula 1-3-10:
PNG
media_image10.png
160
128
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 20, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, b3 is one (1); a3 is zero (0); and a1 and a2 are each one (1), thereby, meeting Condition vi of the claim.
In light of the above, it is clear that Dück anticipates the presently recited claims.
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 of this title, 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:
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dück (US 2021/0013413) in view of Kai et al (US 2010/0044695).
The discussion with respect to Dück as set forth in Paragraph 9 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 5, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprising a host compound, the reference does not disclose a host compound represented by Formula 5 as required by the present claims.
Kai et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following host compound (Abstract, [0055] and Page 6 – Compound 5):
PNG
media_image11.png
278
337
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 5 of the claims:
PNG
media_image12.png
200
424
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X54 to X56 are N;
rings CY551 and CY52 are C12 heterocyclic groups;
ring CY53 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
b51, b52, and b53 are each zero (0);
L51 to L53 are single bonds; and
a51 to a53 are each zero (0).
The reference discloses that the compound improves the luminous efficiency of the organic light emitting device (Abstract).
Given that both Dück and Kai et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices where the light emitting layers comprises host compounds, and given that Dück does not explicitly prohibit additional host compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compound as taught by Kai et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Dück in order to improve the luminous efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dück (US 2021/0013413).
The discussion with respect to Dück as set forth in Paragraph 9 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 6, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the second host is CBP ([0476]), i.e.
PNG
media_image13.png
326
428
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 7 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image14.png
138
274
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
where rings CY71 and CY72 are C6 carbocyclic groups; X81 is a single bond; and a71 and a72 are zero (0)
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed light emitting device nor can the claimed light emitting device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed light emitting device and the light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed second host compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the second host compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dück (US 2021/0013413) in view of Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
The discussion with respect to Dück as set forth in Paragraph 9 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 10, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device ([0534] and [0542]), the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor as recited in the present claims (Abstract).
Shin et al discloses a display apparatus comprising a thin film transistor (Abstract). The thin film transistor comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode and an active layer (Abstract). The transistor further comprises an organic light emitting device, where the first electrode of the organic light emitting device is connected to the drain electrode ([0048]). The reference discloses that the flat panel display apparatus comprising the thin film transistor easily provide uniform electrical characteristics and uniform display characteristics
Given that both Dück and Shin et al are drawn to display devices comprising organic light emitting devices, and given that Shin et al does not explicitly prohibit other device elements, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the thin film transistor as taught by Shin et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display device disclosed by Dück to include the thin film transistor disclosed by Shin et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dück (US 2021/0013413) in view of Campos (US 6,278,237).
The discussion with respect to Dück as set forth in Paragraph 9 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 27, Dück teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses a display device, the reference does not disclose that the display device is a flat panel display as recited in the present claims.
Campos discloses that typical applications of OLEDs include flat panel display (Column 2 Lines 21-25). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the OLED disclosed by Dück in a flat panel display, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of known device for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights