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. JP2023-114662, filed on July 12, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length of the abstract exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of 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 not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 4 and 5 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the l" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the light-emitting layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al (US PGPub 20210257553).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura teaches a boron-containing compound of generic formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
391
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
166
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. On pages 4 and 5, Kawamura discloses several specific structures for their boron-containing compound. The following compounds anticipate the compound of claim 1 whereby m+n = 0 or 10 for Ym,n, X is of -CR1R2-whereby R1R2 join each other to form a ring, “o” is 1, D1 and D2 are carbon atoms, C1 and C2 are carbon atoms, and Z is a hydrogen atom or a fluoro group:
PNG
media_image3.png
157
224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
184
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
174
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Thus, Karamura teaches the claimed “
PNG
media_image6.png
681
545
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
83
537
media_image7.png
Greyscale
”.
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1. Further, Kawamura teaches that an organic light-emitting diode comprises their boron-containing compound in the light emitting zone (paragraph [0018] and claims 5-6). Thus, Kawamura teaches the claimed “An organic light-emitting diode comprising the boron-containing compound according to claim 1 in the light-emitting zone”.
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1. Further, Kawamura teaches that an organic light-emitting diode comprises 0.1-20 wt% of their boron-containing compound in the light emitting layer (paragraph [0020] and claims 9-10). Thus, Kawamura teaches the claimed “An organic light-emitting diode comprising 0.1 to 20 wt% of the boron-containing compound according to claim 1 in the light-emitting layer”.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al (US PGPub 20200220083).
Regarding claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches a polycyclic aromatic compound which can incorporate boron into the center. Hatakeyama teaches specific compounds (1-1), (1-4), and (1-81) which anticipate the invention as claimed:
PNG
media_image8.png
216
296
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
191
272
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
125
263
media_image10.png
Greyscale
. In the case of 1-1, “X” is -NAr-, C1 and C2 are each a carbon atom, “o” is 1, Z is a hydrogen atom, D1 and D2 are each a carbon atom, and “m+n” is 0. In the case of 1-4, “X” is -NAr-, C1 and C2 are each aryl carbon atoms, “o” is 1, Z is a hydrogen atom, D1 and D2 are each a carbon atom, and “m+n” is 0. In the case of 1-4, “X” is -O-, C1 and C2 are each carbon atoms, “o” is 1, Z is a hydrogen atom, D1 and D2 are each a carbon atom, and “m+n” is 0. Thus, Hatakeyama teaches the claimed “
PNG
media_image6.png
681
545
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
83
537
media_image7.png
Greyscale
”.
Regarding claim 4, Hatakeyama teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1. In paragraphs [0139-142], Hatakeyama teaches that the boron-containing compound (polycyclic aromatic compound) is used as a dopant material in a light emitting layer (thus a light emitting zone) of an OLED or organic electroluminescent element. In examples 1 and 5, Hatakeyama uses compound 1-1 in a light emitting layer. Thus, Hatakeyama teaches the claimed “An organic light-emitting diode comprising the boron-containing compound according to claim 1 in the light-emitting zone”.
Regarding claim 5, Hatakeyama teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1. In paragraphs [0139-142], Hatakeyama teaches that the boron-containing compound (polycyclic aromatic compound) is used as a dopant material in a light emitting layer (thus a light emitting zone) of an OLED or organic electroluminescent element. Further, in paragraph [0142], Hatakeyama discloses that when such a compound is used as a dopant material in a light emitting layer, it is most preferably in an amount of 0.1-10% by weight, thus entirely within the range of the invention as claimed. Therefore, Hatakeyama teaches the claimed “An organic light-emitting diode comprising 0.1 to 20 wt% of the boron-containing compound according to claim 1 in the light-emitting layer”.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al (US PGPub 20210257553).
Regarding claim 1, Regarding claim 1, Kawamura teaches a boron-containing compound of generic formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
391
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
166
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. On pages 4 and 5, Kawamura discloses several specific structures for their boron-containing compound. The following compounds anticipate the compound of claim 1 whereby m+n = 0 or 10 for Ym,n, X is of -CR1R2-whereby R1R2 join each other to form a ring, “o” is 1, D1 and D2 are carbon atoms, C1 and C2 are carbon atoms, and Z is a hydrogen atom or a fluoro group:
PNG
media_image3.png
157
224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
184
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
174
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. In paragraph [0012], Kawamura explains that all or part of hydrogen atoms in the structure can be substituted by “deuterium, a halogen, an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, an aryl group having 5 to 30 core atoms, a substituted or unsubstituted silyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted amino group, or cyano group”. Thus, the position of the bottom-most carbon of Kawamura overlaps with the identity of Z as claimed whereby the hydrogen atom can: remain a hydrogen atom, be substituted for a halogen such as fluorine, or be substituted for an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbons. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the hydrogen atom located at the bottom-most carbon for any of the overlapping groups as known alternatives for creating a boron-containing compound and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kawamura teaches the claimed “
PNG
media_image6.png
681
545
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
83
537
media_image7.png
Greyscale
”.
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1. The closest disclosed compounds of Kawamura to the invention as claimed in claim 2 are:
PNG
media_image4.png
184
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
174
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The first compound does not match the invention as claimed since the bottom-most hydrogen position remains hydrogen and thus is not “Z” as claimed. The second compound does not match the invention as claimed since “m+n” as claimed is 0 which is outside the claimed range. However, as described in the rejection of claim 1, Kawamura teaches that any hydrogen atom in the compounds can be substituted for a fluoro group or an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the bottom-most hydrogen atom of the first compound for an alkyl group or a fluoro group or substitute any of the hydrogen atoms on the flanking benzene rings for a fluoro group as known alternative atomic compositions for creating a boron-containing compound and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kawamura teaches the claimed “The boron-containing compound according to claim 1, wherein in the general formula (1), D1 and D2 both are carbon atoms; Y is a fluoro group; 1≤m+n≤10 wherein m and n are an integer of 0 to 5; and Z is an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, a fluoro group or an amino group”.
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1. Further, Kawamura teaches that an organic light-emitting diode comprises their boron-containing compound in the light emitting zone (paragraph [0018] and claims 5-6). Thus, Kawamura teaches the claimed “An organic light-emitting diode comprising the boron-containing compound according to claim 1 in the light-emitting zone”.
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1. Further, Kawamura teaches that an organic light-emitting diode comprises 0.1-20 wt% of their boron-containing compound in the light emitting layer (paragraph [0020] and claims 9-10). Thus, Kawamura teaches the claimed “An organic light-emitting diode comprising 0.1 to 20 wt% of the boron-containing compound according to claim 1 in the light-emitting layer”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naveen et al (NPL: "Deep blue diboron embedded...").
Kawamura teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1 and further enables the possibility of substituting potential hydrogen atoms for a halogen group such as fluorine. However, the specific compounds disclosed do not fully anticipate the compound as claimed in claim 2 since fluorine atoms must exist in a range of 1-10 on the flanking benzene rings from the nitrogen atom:
PNG
media_image5.png
174
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Naveen teaches an analogous boron-containing compound that exists as a dimer pair instead of a single compound. Regardless, Naveen teaches that specific substitution of hydrogen atoms for a fluorine atom in those flanking rings enables bandgap enhancement by electron donating and electron withdrawing effects which would have a similar effect to the boron-containing compound of Kawamura. One would be motivated to pursue such a substitution as both compounds disclosed by Naveen and Kawamura are for use in OLEDs. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute hydrogen atoms in the benzene rings flanking off the nitrogen atoms of the compound of Kawamura for fluorine atoms, as informed by Naveen, in order to enable bandgap enhancement in an OLED and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kawamura and Naveen teach the claimed “The boron-containing compound according to claim 1, wherein in the general formula (1), D1 and D2 both are carbon atoms; Y is a fluoro group; 1≤m+n≤10 wherein m and n are an integer of 0 to 5; and Z is an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, a fluoro group or an amino group”.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al as applied to claim 1 (paragraph 14) above, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al (US PGPub 20200220083).
Kawamura teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1 but is silent on cases whereby the positions of D1 and D2 could be a nitrogen atom. Of relevance, Kawamura teaches the following compounds:
PNG
media_image3.png
157
224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
184
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which satisfy the invention as claimed outside of the limitation whereby “at least one of D1 and D2 is a nitrogen atom”. Hatakeyama teaches similar boron-containing compounds and more generally polycyclic aromatic rings. Hatakeyama teaches specific compounds (1-1), (1-4), and (1-81) which encompass compounds of claim 1, analogous to Kawamura:
PNG
media_image8.png
216
296
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
191
272
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
125
263
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and also satisfy the invention as claimed outside of the limitation whereby “at least one of D1 and D2 is a nitrogen atom”. Hatakeyama more broadly teaches in paragraphs [0015-26] the general polycyclic aromatic compound:
PNG
media_image11.png
691
262
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
285
257
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. Hatakeyama teaches in paragraph [0016] that ring A, which corresponds to the ring containing D1, D2, and Z as claimed, can be a heteroaryl ring, meaning that any of the carbon atoms within the ring could be substituted for another atom such as nitrogen which is a common heteroatom for aromatic rings in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the bottom ring of Kawamura for a heteroatom aromatic ring whereby at least one of the positions corresponding to D1 and D2 is replaced by a nitrogen atom as a known alternative chemical compound structural formula that is sufficient to produce a polycyclic aromatic ring for use in an organic light emitting device and arrive to the invention as claimed. Thus, Kawamura and Hatakeyama teach the claimed “The boron-containing compound according to claim 1, wherein in the general formula (1), at least one of D1 and D2 is a nitrogen atom; Y is a fluoro group; 0≤m+n≤10 wherein m and n are an integer of 0 to 5; and Z is a hydrogen atom”.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al in view of Hatakeyama et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wagner et al (NPL: "Modular Nitrogen-Doped Concave Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons...").
Kawamura teaches the boron-containing compound of claim 1. Hatakeyama provides motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the bottom ring for a heteroatom ring whereby nitrogen could serve as the heteroatom. Furthermore, Wagner discloses a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon whereby a heteroatom ring containing N-heteroatom positions are specifically provided. Wagner teaches that inclusion of such heteroatom rings with N atoms combined with aromatic donor and acceptor groups (analogous to the compounds provided by Kawamura and Hatakeyama) leads to “superb optical and electronic properties. Wagner discloses photoluminescence quantum yields up to 86%, tunable optoelectronic properties by choice of electron-accepting group, advantageous π-stacked arrangements in the molecular crystal phase, and controlled crossover between thermally activated delayed fluorescence and room-temperature phosphorescence. Although the provided compounds of Wagner differ structurally from Kawamura and Hatakeyama, the motivations are convergent to one of ordinary skill in the art due to common purpose in implementation to emitting layers of OLEDs. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to specifically incorporate nitrogen atoms into a heteroatom ring, as informed by Wagner, to improve photoluminescence quantum yield, enable tunable optoelectronic properties, and improve control over thermally activated delayed fluorescence and room-temperature phosphorescence and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Kawamura, Hatakeyama, and Wagner teach the claimed “The boron-containing compound according to claim 1, wherein in the general formula (1), at least one of D1 and D2 is a nitrogen atom; Y is a fluoro group; 0≤m+n≤10 wherein m and n are an integer of 0 to 5; and Z is a hydrogen atom”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights