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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/10/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US 2016/0240800) in view of Kawamura et al (WO 2015/033559, see attached English language translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ma et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes, i.e. an anode and a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode (Abstract [0027]). The organic layer, i.e. an emitter layer, comprises a compound given by Formula 1 or 2 ([0027]). The compound has the following structure ([0078]):
PNG
media_image1.png
540
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the above compound, the group X is NRE, O, or S and the groups RA, RB1, Rc, RD, and RE are H ([0063]-[0064]). The recited group M is Pt, the recited group X1 is O, and the bond between O and Pt is a covalent bond; the recited group X2 is N.
The recited groups Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4, Y5, Y6, Y7, Y8, and Y9 are C. The recited groups Y10 and Y11 are C. The bond between Y1 and Y10 is a double bond, the bond between Y1 and Y2 is a dingle bond, the bond between X2 and Y3 is a double bond, the bond between X2 and Y4 is a single bond, the bond between Y4 and Y5 is a double bond, the bond between Y5 and Y6 is a single bond, the bond between X3 and Y7 is a double bond, the bond between X3 and Y8 is a single bond, the bond between X4 and Y9 is a double bond, and the bond between X4 and Y11 is single bond. The bond between Y2 and Y3, the bond between Y6 and Y7, and Y8 and Y9 are single bonds.
The recited group CY1 is a C6 carbocyclic group; the recited group CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group; and the recited group CY5 is a C3 heterocyclic group. The recited group CY4 is a C6 carbocyclic group, i.e. benzene, and the recited group X4 is C, and therefore not one of the heterocyclic groups recited for CY4 of the present. Furthermore, the recited group X3 is N and not C as required in the present claims.
However, the above compound is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (1) of the reference ([0069]) which is given as:
PNG
media_image2.png
541
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where the recited group CY4 is given by ring D and the recited group CY3 is given by ring C. In rings C and D, the groups X4 and X3 are disclosed as carbon or nitrogen ([0066]). Thus, the recited group CY3 can be benzene, i.e. the recited group X3 is C and the group CY3 is a C6 carbocyclic group.
Given that X4 can be N, ring D in the compound of the reference can be a heteroaryl as disclosed in Paragraph [0068] of the reference. The reference discloses that the term “heteroaryl” encompasses groups such as isoquinoline, i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
From the above, it is clear that isoquinoline, corresponding to the recited ring CY4, is a pyridine group condensed with a benzene group.
From the discussion above, the recited groups CY5, CY2, CY3, and M form a 6-membered ring. The recited group X51 corresponds to the group X and is O or S. The recited integers a1, a2, a3, and a4 are zero (0).
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises a second compound given by Formula (2) as recited in the present claims.
Kawamura et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0048]-[0049] and Page 29 of WO 2015/033559):
PNG
media_image4.png
377
302
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound represented by Formula (2):
PNG
media_image5.png
92
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where a11 is one (1), b11 is one (1); n11 is one (1); and L11 is an unsubstituted anthracene, i.e. a C14 arylene. In recited Formula (2), Ar11 corresponds to Formula 8C-3 of the claims:
,
PNG
media_image6.png
192
310
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where R801 and R802 are methyl groups. R805 correspond to:
PNG
media_image7.png
40
230
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where, as discussed above, a11 is one (1); b11 is one (1); n11 is one (1); and L11 is an anthracene group, i.e. an unsubstituted C14 arylene group. In Formula 8C-2 the remaining R-groups are hydrogen and R11 is a phenyl group, i.e. a hole transport group.
The reference discloses that utilizing the compound provides a low driving voltage and exhibits high luminous efficiency ([0005]).
Given that both Ma et al and Kawamura et al are drawn to organic light emitting device comprising electron transport layers, and given that Ma et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients from being present in the light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Kawamura et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Ma et al in order to improve electroluminescent properties and obtain a device having improved efficiency of light emission and a long lifetime with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, in Ma et al, the recited ring CY1 is a six (6) membered ring; the recited group CY2 is six (6) membered ring; the recited group CY3 is a six (6) membered ring; and the recited group CY5 is a 5-membered ring. The 6-membered rings are benzene and pyridine, and the 5-membered ring is an imidazole ring, i.e. the group X in the compound of Ma et al is N.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the recited groups CY1 and CY2 are benzene rings; the recited group CY4 is an isoquinoline group; and the recited group CY3 is benzene.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the compound of Formula 1 in claim 1 does not require the recited groups L1 to L4 and L7, Ma et al discloses the compound as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the compound of Formula 1 in claim 1 does not require the recited groups R1 to R4, R7 and R8, Ma et al discloses the compound as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ma et al discloses that the recited group X51 is O or S.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Ma et al, the recited group X51 is O. From the discussion above, the recited groups CY1 and CY2 are benzene rings; the recited group CY3 is benzene; and the recited group CY4 is an isoquinoline. Thus, Ma et al discloses a compound given by recited Formula 1-2A of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Kawamura et al, L11 in an anthracene group.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Kawamura et al R11 is a phenyl group.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Ma et al and Kawamura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kawamura et al discloses that the amount of the compound relative to dopant is 19:1 ([0167]). Accordingly, the amount of the host compound, i.e. second compound, is greater than that of the dopant, i.e. first compound.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US 2016/0240800) in view of Nishimura et al (US 2010/0171109) and Klubek et al (US 2007/0122657).
Regarding claim 13, Ma et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes, i.e. an anode and a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and cathode (Abstract [0027]). The organic layer, i.e. an emitter layer, comprises a compound given by Formula 1 or 2 ([0027]). The compound has the following structure ([0078]):
PNG
media_image1.png
540
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the above compound, the group X is NRE, O, or S and the groups RA, RB1, Rc, RD, and RE are H ([0063]-[0064]). The recited group M is Pt, the recited group X1 is O, and the bond between O and Pt is a covalent bond; the recited group X2 is N.
The recited groups Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4, Y5, Y6, Y7, Y8, and Y9 are C. The recited groups Y10 and Y11 are C. The bond between Y1 and Y10 is a double bond, the bond between Y1 and Y2 is a dingle bond, the bond between X2 and Y3 is a double bond, the bond between X2 and Y4 is a single bond, the bond between Y4 and Y5 is a double bond, the bond between Y5 and Y6 is a single bond, the bond between X3 and Y7 is a double bond, the bond between X3 and Y8 is a single bond, the bond between X4 and Y9 is a double bond, and the bond between X4 and Y11 is single bond. The bond between Y2 and Y3, the bond between Y6 and Y7, and Y8 and Y9 are single bonds.
The recited group CY1 is a C6 carbocyclic group; the recited group CY2 is a C6 carbocyclic group; and the recited group CY5 is a C3 heterocyclic group. The recited group CY4 is a C6 carbocyclic group, i.e. benzene, and the recited group X4 is C, and therefore not one of the heterocyclic groups recited for CY4 of the present. Furthermore, the recited group X3 is N and not C as required in the present claims.
However, the above compound is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (1) of the reference ([0069]) which is given as:
PNG
media_image2.png
541
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where the recited group CY4 is given by ring D and the recited group CY3 is given by ring C. In rings C and D, the groups X4 and X3 are disclosed as carbon or nitrogen ([0066]). Thus, the recited group CY3 can be benzene, i.e. the recited group X3 is C and the group CY3 is a C6 carbocyclic group.
Given that X4 can be N, ring D in the compound of the reference can be a heteroaryl as disclosed in Paragraph [0068] of the reference. The reference discloses that the term “heteroaryl” encompasses groups such as isoquinoline, i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
From the above, it is clear that isoquinoline, corresponding to the recited ring CY4, is a pyridine group condensed with a benzene group.
From the discussion above, the recited groups CY5, CY2, CY3, and M form a 6-membered ring. The recited group X51 corresponds to the group X and is O or S. The recited integers a1, a2, a3, and a4 are zero (0).
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises a second compound given by Formula (2) as recited in the present claims.
Nishimura et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer, where the light emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant and a phosphorescent host (Abstract). The phosphorescent host has a polycyclic fused aromatic skeleton with the following formula (Abstract, [0026], [0035] and Page 8):
PNG
media_image8.png
239
435
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound represented by Formula (2):
PNG
media_image5.png
92
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where n11 is two (2). In recited Formula (2), Ar11 corresponds to Formula 8B-3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
151
267
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where R811 and R805 are:
PNG
media_image7.png
40
230
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where a11 is zero (0); b11 is one (1); and R11 is naphthyl, i.e. a hole transport group. In Formula 8B-3, the remaining R-groups are H.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following phosphorescent host with a polycyclic fused aromatic skeleton ([0038]):
PNG
media_image10.png
241
390
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound represented by Formula (2):
PNG
media_image5.png
92
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where n11 is two (2). In recited Formula (2), Ar11 corresponds to Formula 8B-4 of the claims:
PNG
media_image11.png
176
217
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where R812 and R803 are:
PNG
media_image7.png
40
230
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where a11 is zero (0); b11 is one (1); and R11 is phenyl, i.e. a hole transport group. In Formula 8B-4, the remaining R-groups are H.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following phosphorescent host with a polycyclic fused aromatic skeleton ([0042]):
PNG
media_image12.png
354
354
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound represented by Formula (2):
PNG
media_image5.png
92
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where n11 is two (2). In recited Formula (2), Ar11 corresponds to Formula 8B-5 of the claims:
PNG
media_image13.png
191
211
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
where R801 and R804 are:
PNG
media_image7.png
40
230
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where a11 is zero (0); b11 is one (1); and R11 is phenyl, i.e. a hole transport group. In Formula 8B-5, the remaining R-groups are H.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following phosphorescent host with a polycyclic fused aromatic skeleton ([0049]):
PNG
media_image14.png
294
447
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound represented by Formula (2):
PNG
media_image5.png
92
352
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where n11 is one (1). In recited Formula (2), Ar11 corresponds to Formula 8B-10 of the claims:
PNG
media_image15.png
173
241
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where R809 is:
PNG
media_image7.png
40
230
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where a11 is one(1); b11 is one (1); L11 is a phenylene group, and R11 is phenyl, i.e. a hole transport group. In Formula 8B-10, the remaining R-groups are H.
The reference discloses that the phosphorescent host has high stability so that the singlet and triplet energy can be transferred smoothly, resulting in enhanced luminous efficiency and long lifetime ([0114]-[0115]).
Given that both Ma et al and Nishimura et al are drawn to organic light emitting device comprising electron transport layers, and given that Ma et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients from being present in the electron transport layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Nishimura et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Ma et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Ma et al and Nishimura et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Ma et al does not disclose that the organic layer comprises a third compound given by Formula (3) as recited in the present claims.
Klubek et al discloses an organic light emitting device where a layer between the cathode and the light emitting layer, i.e. an electron transport layer, comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0010], [0018], and Page 7 – Inv-10):
PNG
media_image16.png
240
480
media_image16.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to recited third compound represented by Formula 3, i.e.
PNG
media_image17.png
70
275
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where n21 is one (1); a21 is zero (0); and b21 is one (1). Ar21 is given by Formula (9B-5), i.e.
PNG
media_image18.png
278
286
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where R201 corresponds to:
PNG
media_image19.png
69
293
media_image19.png
Greyscale
where, as discussed above, a21 is zero (0), b21 is one (1); n21 is one (1). In Formula (9B-5) R21 is an unsubstituted phenanthroline group, i.e. an electron transport group and the remaining R-groups are H.
The reference discloses that the use of the compound results in organic light emitting devices having increased luminance, good stability, and reduced driving voltage ([0010]).
Given that both Ma et al and Klubek et al are drawn to organic light emitting device comprising electron transport layers, and given that Ma et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients from being present in the light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Klubek et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Ma et al in order obtain an device having increased luminance, good stability, and reduced driving voltage with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Ma et al, Nishimura et al, and Klubek et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, it is clear that the recited compound as disclosed by Nishimura et al is different from the recited third compound taught by Klubek et al.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Ma et al, Nishimura et al, and Klubek et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Klubek et al, R21 is a phenanthrolinyl group substituted with a C6 aryl group.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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, 8:00 AM – 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