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 28-29, 31-32, 34-35, 37-38 and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/157593 A1 to Kakizoe et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation). Unless stated otherwise, the page numbers are in reference to the original document.
Kakizoe et al. discloses an OLED having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/ EBL/EML/HBL/ETL/EIL/cathode (p. 78 of the translation), wherein the EML comprises a host material, a 1st TADF dopant and a 2nd TADF dopant, wherein the 2nd TADF dopant may emit light having a wavelength of 450-495 nm (p. 41). S1(host) > S1 (1st TADF dopant) > S1 (2nd TADF dopant) (p. 8). The host material is selected from a group (pp. 7+) that includes
PNG
media_image1.png
368
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X = O or S and L can be 1,4-phenylene (p. 7). An example of the host compound is
PNG
media_image2.png
216
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p. 26). This compound is representative of the compound in claim 28, and it is exemplified in the examples (p. 99). Claim 28 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 29, 31-32, 34-35, 37-38, and 41-46.
Claims 28, 32-34, 37-39, 41 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0127214 A1 to Choi et al.
Regarding claim 28, Choi et al. discloses an OLED having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/EBL/EML/HBL/ETL/EIL/cathode, wherein the EML comprises a host compound and a TADF dopant compound and wherein S1H > S1D and T1H > T1D [0110]. The host compound has a generic structure of
PNG
media_image3.png
230
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
which is exemplified by such compounds as
PNG
media_image4.png
400
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
394
438
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(pp. 11 & 14). These host compounds are representative of the compound M3 and the corresponding devices are therefore representative of the claimed device. Claim 28 is accordingly unpatentable. See MPEP § 2131.02(II). So are claims 32-34, 37-39, 41 and 44-45. The features of claim 46 are disclosed at paragraph [0117].
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.
Claims 30, 40 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/157593 A1 to Kakizoe et al.
The device of claim 28 is disclosed by Kakizoe et al. as explained above. Regarding claim 30, the prior art host compound can have L being a 1,4-phenylene as mentioned. While a device comprising host compound similar to the cited compound 21 wherein the linker is a 1,4-phenylene is not provided as an example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to make and use such a device without expecting any difficulty or an unfavorable outcome. Claim 30 is therefore unpatentable. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Regarding claim 47, Kakizoe et al. does provide an example of a device wherein the EML comprises compounds 20, T58 and T80 as the host, the 1st dopant and the 2nd dopant, respectively (see durability test of blue light emitting element 2 on page 99). The 2nd dopant T80,
PNG
media_image6.png
266
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
is representative of the compound of formula 2A. While the host compound, 20, in the example is different from the claimed compound of formula 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to replace it with compound 21 and expect the same result. Regarding claim 40, Kakizoe et al. fails to disclose the host compound. However, from the fact that the group X in the generic formula can be O or S, one of ordinary skill in the art would draw a conclusion that replacing the oxygen atoms in the compound 21 with sulfur atoms would not jeopardize the performance of the device at all.
Claims 28-29, 34-39 and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0047526 A1 to Chung et al.
Chung et al. discloses an OLED having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/EBL/ EML/HBL/ETL/EIL/cathode, wherein the EML comprises a TADF dopant and a host material (p. 76) having a high singlet energy level and a high triplet energy level and typified by
PNG
media_image7.png
330
406
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(p. 75). This compound is representative of the compound of formula 1: n = 1, one R100 = CN, Y1 = O, R27 = CN, A = (11E) where X1 = S. As the compound serves as the host material in the EML, it must have a singlet energy S1 higher than that of the dopant. While Chung et al. fails to provide an example wherein the dopant is a TADF compound, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to make and use such device without expecting any difficulty or an unfavorable outcome. Claim 28 is therefore unpatentable. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). So are claims 29, 34-35, 39 and 42-45. The features of claim 36 can be found on page 74. Those of claims 37-38 and 41 can be found on page 72.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 48 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The compound of claim 48 is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights