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 Objections
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “an organic compound represented by formula 1.” Claims 2-5 recite “an organic compound.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, “[Formula 2]” and the chemical group represented by Formula 2 are on different pages. In claims 1 and 10, in the paragraphs following the description of R10a, there should be an “or” between paragraphs. 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.
Claims 1-19 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 10 introduce Formula 2 as a group that could represent Ar1 when X1 = N. Within claims 1-19, it is unclear when Formula 2 must be present in the context of Formula 1. Further clarification is required to discern when Formula 2 must be present in lieu of the potential Ar1 substituents. For the purposes of the present examination, the examiner is treating Formula 2 as an optional substituent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xianbin Xu et al. (CN114315878A, English translated document is referred to in this Office Action, hereafter Xu).
Xu discloses a compound in [0106] having a structure as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
232
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xu further discloses general formulae 1 and 2-1 – 2-6 on pages 2 and 3 having structures as shown below, where in R1 – R5 can belong to one of formulae 2-1 – 2-6 and n1 – n5 are integers from 0 to 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
225
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
465
1007
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound in [0106] of Xu has the identical structure as Applicant’s [Formula 1] of claims 1 and 10, wherein X1 is N-Phenyl, R1 is a C1-C60 heterocyclic group unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a, CY1 is a C1-C60 heterocyclic group, and X11 and X12 are a single bond, O, S, or N-R.
Regarding claim 1, wherein the Applicant claims a light-emitting device containing a first electrode; a second electrode; an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer; and an organic compound represented by Formula 1, Xu meets all the limitations. Figure 1 of Xu (annotated version provided below) is a light-emitting device, wherein the compound in [0106] can be in the emitting layer, and includes all the limitations of the Applicant’s claim 1, thereby accounting for all the limitations of claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
313
1007
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, wherein the Applicant claims the light-emitting device of claim 1, further comprising: a second compound that includes at least one π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 heterocyclic group, a third compound that includes a group represented by Formula 3, a fourth compound that includes platinum, where in the organic compound represented by Formula 1, the second compound, the third compound and the fourth compound are different from each other, Xu meets all of the limitations.
Xu discloses that layer 320 may include one or more compounds. These compounds include carbazole multimers and/or carbazole-linked triarylamine-based compounds (Pg. 12). Xu also discloses that the incorporation of a host material within layer 330 can include an aromatic amine derivative. The examiner asserts that these descriptions meet the limitations of the second and third compounds as claimed in claim 2.
Xu also discloses that the anode 100 may be comprised of platinum (Pg. 12). The examiner asserts that this meets the limitation of the fourth compound.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the Applicant claims the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the interlayer includes the organic compound represented by formula 1, Xu meets all the limitations. See annotated Figure 1 of Xu. Xu also discloses that layer 330 may contain an organic compound such as the one shown in [0106].
Regarding claim 6, wherein the Applicant claims the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, and the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer; and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, Xu meets all the limitations. See annotated Figure 1 of Xu.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses an electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1 (Abstract and Figure 2 of Xu).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses an electronic equipment comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1 within the Applicant’s elected group (Page 4 of Xu).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the Applicant claims a compound represented by Formula 1, Xu meets all the limitations. See exemplified compound in [0106].
Regarding claim 11, wherein the Applicant claims the organic compound of claim 10, wherein in Formulae 1 and 2, CY1 and CY2 are each independently a benzene group, a naphthalene group, a pyridine group, a quinoline group, or an isoquinoline group, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106]. The examiner notes that the language of claims 10 and 11 do not stipulate that Formula 2 must be present.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the Applicant claims the organic compound of claim 10, wherein in Formulae 1 and 2, CY1 and CY2 are each independently a group represented by one of Formulae L1 to L14, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106]. The examiner notes that the language of claims 10 and 11 do not stipulate that Formula 2 must be present.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the Applicant claims the organic compound of claim 10, wherein in Formula 1, X11 is a single bond or O, and c12 is 0; X12 is a single bond or O, and c11 is 0; or c11 and c12 are each 1, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106].
Regarding claim 14, wherein the Applicant claims the organic compound of claim 10, wherein in Formula 2, a sum of c21 and c22 is 1 or 2, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106]. The examiner notes that the language of claims 10 and 14 do not stipulate that Formula 2 must be present.
Regarding claim 15, wherein the Applicant claims the organic compound of claim 10, wherein in Formula 2, X21 is a single bond or O, and c22 is 0; X22 is a single bond or O, and c21 is 0; or c21 and c22 are each 1, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106]. The examiner notes that the language of claims 10 and 15 do not stipulate that Formula 2 must be present.
Regarding claim 16, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106]. The examiner notes that the language of claims 10 and 16 do not stipulate that Formula 2 must be present.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the Applicant claims the organic compound of claim 10, wherein in Formula 1 can be represented by one of Formulae P11 to P18, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106].
Regarding claim 18, wherein the Applicant claims the organic compound of claim 10, wherein in Formula 1 can be represented by one of Formulae P21 to P29, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106]. The examiner notes that the language of claims 10 and 18 do not stipulate that Formula 2 must be present.
Regarding claim 19, Xu meets all the limitations. See compound in [0106].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xianbin Xu et al. (CN114315878A, English translated document is referred to in this Office Action, hereafter Xu) in view of Groarke et al. (US 2020/0058881 A1, hereafter Groarke).
Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Xu does not disclose that the emission layer includes all of the second compound, the third compound and the fourth compound.
Groarke is directed towards OLEDs that exhibit improved exciton recombination and broader spectral coverage. Groarke teaches that in the emission layer of their OLEDs, a double host system may be used [0256]. Furthermore, Groarke teaches that the light-emitting layer comprises at least one emitter material and at least two matrix (host) materials [0265]. The examiner asserts that it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that host materials can be represented by the second and/or third compound as the Applicant claims in claim 2. Lastly, Groarke teaches that a platinum complex may be used as an additional dopant in the light-emitting layer [0265, 0281].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the light-emitting device of Xu with the additions of a second compound, third compound, and fourth compound into the emission layer as taught by Groarke, with the intention of improving exciton recombination and spectral coverage.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. in view of Ahn et al. (US 2022/0073550 A1, hereafter Ahn).
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches all of Claim 1, and that a first capping layer is arranged outside the first electrode (Pg. 17), and at least one of the emission layer, first capping layer, and the second capping layer includes the organic compound represented by Formula 1 (Figure 1 of Xu).
Xu does not disclose the implementation of a second capping layer arranged outside the second electrode.
Ahn is directed towards OLEDs with improved external luminescence efficiencies. Ahn teaches their OLED may further include at a first capping layer arranged outside a first electrode and a second capping layer arranged outside a second electrode [0131].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the light-emitting device of Xu with the implementation of a second capping layer arranged outside of the second electrode as taught by Ahn, with the intention of improving external luminescence efficiency, and for the protection of the OLED from degradation.
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches all of claim 7.
Xu does not disclose the electronic apparatus of claim 7, further comprising a thin-film transistor, a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch-screen layer, a polarizing layer, or a combination thereof.
Ahn is also directed towards OLEDS that improve the functionality of the electronic apparatus comprising an OLED. Ahn teaches that their electronic apparatus comprising a LED may further include a thin-film transistor, a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touchscreen layer, a polarization layer, or a combination thereof [0139].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the light-emitting device of Xu with the implementation a thin-film transistor, a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch-screen layer, a polarizing layer, or a combination thereof, as taught by Ahn, with the intention of improving the functionality of the electronic apparatus comprising a light-emitting device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al in view of Jae Ho Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1, hereafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 20, Xu teaches the organic compound of claim 10, as seen with the compound in [0106]. Xu also teaches that R1, through R5 can independently be selected from “hydrogen, deuterium, cyano, halogen groups, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl with 1-10 carbon atoms, haloalkyl with 1-10 carbon atoms, deuterated alkyl with 1-10 carbon atoms, cycloalkyl with 3-10 carbon atoms, heterocycloalkyl with 2-10 carbon atoms, aryl with 6-30 carbon atoms, or heteroaryl with 3-30 carbon atoms” (Pg. 2). Xu also teaches that R2 and R4 can be substituted at least once at any position on the aryl linker.
Xu does not disclose the organic compound of claim 10, wherein the organic compound is explicitly one of Compounds 1 to 213.
Jeong is directed towards OLEDs, wherein the dopant material has the same core structure as the Applicant as claimed in claim 10 (see Formula 1 of Jeong below). Additionally, Jeong teaches exemplified structures wherein bispirofluorene motifs are appended to the core structure through an aryl spacer (see exemplified compounds 174 and 175 of Jeong below). Many of the Applicant’s exemplified structures in claim 20 incorporate Jeong’s teachings as seen in compounds 174 and 175 and closely resemble that of the Applicant’s Formula 1 as claimed in claim 10.
PNG
media_image5.png
439
656
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
376
388
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
392
379
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Xu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified formula 1 of Xu by substituting a bispirofluorene motif, as taught by Jeong, at the ortho position(s) relative to the N-Aryl linker, as taught by Xu. See an exemplary modified structure of Xu with compound 175 of Jeong below. This generalized structure meets the limitations of the various exemplified compounds the Applicant claims in claim 20. Compound 174 of Jeong could be adapted into Xu’s framework by the same manner, further meeting the limitations of other exemplified structures in claim 20.
The motivation of doing so would have been to suppress/inhibit reactions between the Boron center and a Lewis base to improve device performance, as taught by the Applicant [00179-00181].
PNG
media_image8.png
594
717
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the substitution would have been one preferred 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 emitting layer of an OLED and possess the benefits taught by Xu. See MPEP 2143.I(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220306655-A1 by Qiqi Nie et al. Discloses a similar symmetrical core structure with similar linking groups to bispirofluorene motifs
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDLER K DOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1056. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/C.K.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights