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 .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/6/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/6/2026. In particular, original Claim 1 has been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al (US 2021/0083203).
Regarding claim 1, Leung et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, i.e. a first electrode, a cathode, i.e. a second electrode, and a light emitting layer, i.e. an organic layer comprising an emission layer, disposed between the anode and cathode ([0152]-[0153).
The light emitting layer comprises the following thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) compound ([0001], [0017], [0106] and Page 51):
PNG
media_image1.png
530
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
(Ar1)n1-(L1)m1-(Ar2)n2,
where:
n1 is two (2);
m1 is one (1);
n2 is one (1); and
n1 + n2 = 3, i.e. ≥ 1.
L1 corresponds to Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X3 are N;
a30 is two (2); and
R30 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group and a substituted C6 aryl group substituted with C12 heteroaryl group.
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar1 corresponds to recited Formula 1(1), i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
96
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
CY11 and CY12 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
Y11 is a single bond;
Y12 is -N(R15)-, where R15 is a binding site to L1;
R11 and R12 are H.
While the reference discloses this compound as a TADF compound and not a host as recited in the present claim, given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims as a host, it is the Office’s position that the TADF compound disclosed by the reference will necessarily function as a host compound.
The light emitting layer further comprises the following metal organic complex as a dopant ([0001], [0017], [0020], [0106], and Page 15 – Ir-26):
PNG
media_image4.png
374
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the phosphorescent dopant given by recited Formula (4), i.e.
PNG
media_image5.png
330
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M4 is Ir;
Y41 and Y42 are N;
Y43 and Y44 are C;
T41 to T44 are single bonds;
L42 and L44 are single bonds;
the integers m44 and m42 are one (1);
the integers m41 and m43 are zero (0);
R41 is a C7 cycloalkyl; and
R42 to R43 are hydrogen.
Given that the claim recites that the phosphorescent dopant comprises an organometallic compound represented by Formula 4, the claims admit or allow for additional components or elements to be present in the phosphorescent dopant including additional ligands such those found in the phosphorescent dopant disclosed by the reference.
Given that the reference does not disclose Compound 1-15:
PNG
media_image6.png
158
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
it is clear that the host does not comprise Compound 1-15 as recited in the present claims.
The reference does not explicitly disclose that the host and dopant satisfy Equations (1) to (3) recited in the present claims. However, the reference discloses the host compound and phosphorescent dopant encompassed by the presented claims, and therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these compounds to meet the requirements of Equations 1 to 3 as recited in the present claims.
The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the host and dopant satisfying Equations 1 to 3 would naturally arise and be achieved by the presence of the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic light emitting device nor can the claimed organic 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 organic light emitting device and the organic light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed host and dopant, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the host and dopant compounds which are both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Leung et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 corresponds to Formula 4-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
120
136
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z21 and Z22 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 6, Leung et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, R30 corresponds to Formula 5-1:
PNG
media_image8.png
82
110
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where e5 is two (2) and Z31 is a carbazolyl group.
Regarding claim 7, Leung et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the host compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
530
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
corresponds to Compound 1-3 of the claims.
Alternatively, it is noted that TADF compound discussed above is but one embodiment and the reference discloses the following compound TADF or host compound(Page 47):
PNG
media_image9.png
192
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which corresponds to Compound 1-8 of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, Leung et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference only requires the host compound discussed above, it is clear that the host consists of the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, Leung et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, A41 and A42 correspond to Formula 2-4:
PNG
media_image10.png
78
132
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where X24 is N*; X25 is C*; X26 is C; and R21 is hydrogen or a C6 cycloalkyl.
A43 and A44 are benzene groups represented by Formula (2-1), i.e.
PNG
media_image11.png
82
130
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where X21 to X23 are C* and R21 is H.
Regarding claim 15, Leung et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the metal organic complex comprises between 0.01 to 30 wt. % of the mixture ([0103]). Given that the mixture is only required to comprise the TADF compound and the metal organic complex, it is clear that the amount of the TADF or host compound is greater than the organic metal complex.
Regarding claim 16, Leung et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above.. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed compounds in the recited light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the emission layer emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength in the range of about 420 nm to about 475 nm, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2013/0292659) in view of Li et al (US 2015/0162552).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0091] - Figure 5):
PNG
media_image12.png
281
767
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 is the anode ([0085]), corresponding to the recited first electrode, and layer 110 is the cathode ([0086]), corresponding to the recited second electrode and faces the first electrode ([0049]). The organic layer comprises layers 130 to 170, where layer 130 is the light emitting layer ([0091]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0040], [0073], and Page 7 – Chemical Formula 13a):
PNG
media_image13.png
607
573
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to recited Formula 1, i.e.
(Ar1)n1-(L1)m1-(Ar2)n2,
where:
n1 is two (2);
m1 is one (1);
n2 is one (1); and
n1 + n2 = 3, i.e. ≥ 1; and
L1 is a C6 carbocyclic group.
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar1 corresponds to recited Formula 1(1), i.e.
PNG
media_image14.png
108
368
media_image14.png
Greyscale
where:
Y11 is -N(R15)-, and R15 an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group;
Y12 a single bond;
R11 and R12 are hydrogen;
R15 is binding site to L1;
CY1 and CY2 are C6 carbocyclic groups; and
a11 and a12 are four (4); and
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar2 corresponds to Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image15.png
96
178
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X3 are N;
a30 is three (3); and
R30 is a binding site to L1 and two (2) unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Finally, given that the reference does not disclose Compound 1-15,
PNG
media_image6.png
158
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
it is clear that the host does not comprise Compound 1-15 as recited in the present claims.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant, the reference does not disclose the dopant given by Formula (4) as recited in the present claims ([0128]).
Li et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following tetradentate platinum complex (Abstract and Page 2):
PNG
media_image16.png
398
539
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the phosphorescent dopant given by recited Formula (4), i.e.
PNG
media_image5.png
330
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where
M4 is Pt;
Y41 and Y42 are C;
Y43 and Y44 are N;
ring A41 is a carbazole ring, i.e. a C12 heterocyclic group;
ring A42 is a benzene group, i.e. a C6 carbocyclic group;
ring A43 is an imidazole group, i.e. a C3 heterocyclic group;
T41 to T44 are single bonds;
L41 is O;
L42 and L44 are single bonds;
the integers m41, m42, and m44 are one (1);
the integer m43 is zero (0);
R41 is H;
the integer b41 is six (6);
R42 is tert-butyl, i.e. a C4 alkyl;
the integer b42 is one (1);
R44 is tert-butyl, i.e. a C4 alkyl;
the integer b44 is one (1);
R43 is methyl, i.e. a C1 alkyl; and
the integer b43 is one (1).
The reference discloses that utilizing this compound in an electrochemically stable device architecture results in long operational lifetime with an estimated LT97 of over 600 hours at a luminance of 100 cd/m2 (Abstract).
Given that both Kim et al and Li et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising host compounds and phosphorescent dopants, and given that Kim et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the phosphorescent compound as taught by Li et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such dopant compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kim et al in order to obtain an electrochemically stable device with a long operational life with a reasonable expectation of success.
The references do not explicitly disclose that the host and dopant satisfy Equations (1) to (3) recited in the present claims. However, the references disclose the host compound and phosphorescent dopant encompassed by the presented claims, and therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these compounds to meet the requirements of Equations 1 to 3 as recited in the present claims.
The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the host and dopant satisfying Equations 1 to 3 would naturally arise and be achieved by the presence of the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1 is a phenyl corresponds to Formula 3-1:
PNG
media_image17.png
86
130
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where Z11 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Ar1 corresponds to Formula 4-1:
PNG
media_image18.png
156
186
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where Z21 and Z22 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R30 corresponds to Formula 5-1:
PNG
media_image19.png
88
130
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
where Z31 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that Kim et al only requires the host compound discussed above, it is clear that the host consists of the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses a compound where ring A41 is a carbazole group represented by Formula (2-9), i.e.
PNG
media_image20.png
136
198
media_image20.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X24 is N*;
X25 and X26 are C*; and
R21 and R22 are H.
Ring A42 is a benzene group represented by Formula (2-1), i.e.
PNG
media_image21.png
146
155
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
where X21 to X23 are C* and R21 is H.
Ring A43 is an imidazole group represented by Formula (2-11), i.e.
PNG
media_image22.png
184
176
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X29 is N-R25, where R25 is methyl;
X27 is N*;
X28 is N*; and
R21 and R22 are H.
Ring A44 is pyridine group represented by Formula (2-4), i.e.
PNG
media_image23.png
147
147
media_image23.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X24 is N*;
X25 is C*;
X26 is C; and
R21 is tert-butyl.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses a compound where M4 is Pt; T41 to T44 are single bonds and L42 and L44 are single bonds.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses a compound where R41 is H; R42 are tert-butyl; R43 is an alkyl group; and R44 is tert-butyl.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim et al discloses a light emitting layer where a phosphorescent dopant is utilized in an amount of 7.0 wt. %, while the host compound comprises 97 wt. % of the light emitting layer (Example 5 – [0125]-[0128] and [0132]) relative to the total of the host and dopant. Accordingly, it is clear that the amount of host is greater than the amount of the phosphorescent dopant as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed compounds in the recited light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the emission layer emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength in the range of about 420 nm to about 475 nm, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following device:
PNG
media_image24.png
281
847
media_image24.png
Greyscale
.
In this device, layer 120 corresponds to the anode and layer 120 corresponds to the cathode. The hole injection (170) and hole transport (140) layers correspond to the recited hole transport region and are located between the first electrode (120) and the light emitting layer (130) ([0192]). The electron transport (150) and electron injection (160) layers correspond to the recited electron transport region and are located between the second electrode (110) and the light emitting layer (130) ([0192]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim et al discloses that the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer formed from Alq3 ([0130]), i.e. a metal comprising material.
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0091] - Figure 5):
PNG
media_image12.png
281
767
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 is the anode ([0085]), corresponding to the recited first electrode, and layer 110 is the cathode ([0086]), corresponding to the recited second electrode and faces the first electrode ([0049]). The organic layer comprises layers 130 to 170, where layer 130 is the light emitting layer ([0091]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0040], [0073], and Page 7 – Chemical Formula 13a):
PNG
media_image13.png
607
573
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to recited Formula 1, i.e.
(Ar1)n1-(L1)m1-(Ar2)n2,
where:
n1 is two (2);
m1 is one (1);
n2 is one (1); and
n1 + n2 = 3, i.e. ≥ 1; and
L1 is a C6 carbocyclic group.
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar1 corresponds to recited Formula 1(1), i.e.
PNG
media_image14.png
108
368
media_image14.png
Greyscale
where:
Y11 is -N(R15)-, and R15 an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group;
Y12 a single bond;
R11 and R12are hydrogen;
R15 is binding site to L1;
CY1 and CY2 are C6 carbocyclic groups; and
a11 and a12 are four (4); and
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar2 corresponds to Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image15.png
96
178
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X3 are N;
a30 is three (3); and
R30 is a binding sited to L1 and two (2) unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Finally, given that the reference does not disclose Compound 1-15,
PNG
media_image6.png
158
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
it is clear that the host does not comprise Compound 1-15 as recited in the present claims.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant, the reference does not disclose the dopant as required by the present claims.([0128]).
Li et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following tetradentate platinum complex (Abstract and Page 2):
PNG
media_image25.png
395
523
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Compound 2-11 of the claims.
The reference discloses that utilizing this compound in an electrochemically stable device architecture results in long operational lifetime with an estimated LT97 of over 600 hours at a luminance of 100 cd/m2 (Abstract).
Given that both Kim et al and Li et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising host compounds and phosphorescent dopants, and given that Kim et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the phosphorescent compound as taught by Li et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such dopant compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kim et al in order to obtain an electrochemically stable device with a long operational life with a reasonable expectation of success.
The references do not explicitly disclose that the host and dopant satisfy Equations (1) to (3) recited in the present claims. However, the references disclose the host compound and phosphorescent dopant encompassed by the presented claims, and therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these compounds to meet the requirements of Equations 1 to 3 as recited in the present claims.
The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the host and dopant satisfying Equations 1 to 3 would naturally arise and be achieved by the presence of the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2013/0292659) and Li et al (US 2015/0162552) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19 above, and in view of Cho et al (US 2015/0207079).
The discussion with respect to Kim et al and Li et al as set forth in Paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Kim et al does not disclose that the hole transport layer comprises a p-dopant where the LUMO of the dopant is -3.5 eV or less as recited in the present claims.
Cho et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode (Figure – layer 110, and a cathode (Figure – layer 190 ([0040] and [0271]). The hole transport region in the device comprises a charge generating material, i.e. a p-dopant, such as ([0113]-[0114] – Compound HT-D1):
PNG
media_image26.png
310
295
media_image26.png
Greyscale
.
The reference does not disclose the LUMO of this compound is -3.5 eV or less. However, it is noted that the reference discloses the identical compound disclosed on Pages 68-69 of the instant Specification, i.e. compound HAT-CN, as having a LUMO of -3.5 eV or less. Accordingly, it is the Examiner’s position that the compound disclosed by the reference necessarily has a LUMO or less than -3.5 eV. The reference discloses that this compound is a charge generating material which improves conductivity in the device.
Given that both Kim et al and Cho et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising hole transport layers and given that Kim et al does not prohibit additional ingredients in the hole transport layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the p-dopant as taught by Cho et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such p-dopants in the hole transporting layer disclosed by Kim et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2013/0292659) in view of Li et al (US 2014/0364605) and Shin et al (US 2012/0049192).
Regarding claim 20, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0091] - Figure 5):
PNG
media_image12.png
281
767
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 is the anode ([0085]), corresponding to the recited first electrode, and layer 110 is the cathode ([0086]), corresponding to the recited second electrode and faces the first electrode ([0049]). The organic layer comprises layers 130 to 170, where layer 130 is the light emitting layer ([0091]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0040], [0073], and Page 7 – Chemical Formula 13a):
PNG
media_image27.png
607
573
media_image27.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to recited Formula 1, i.e.
(Ar1)n1-(L1)m1-(Ar2)n2,
where:
n1 is two (2);
m1 is one (1);
n2 is one (1); and
n1 + n2 = 3, i.e. ≥ 1; and
L1 is a C6 carbocyclic group.
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar1 corresponds to recited Formula 1(1), i.e.
PNG
media_image14.png
108
368
media_image14.png
Greyscale
where:
Y11 is -N(R15)-, and R15 an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group;
Y12 a single bond;
R11 and R12 are hydrogen;
R15 is binding site to L1;
CY1 and CY2 are C6 carbocyclic groups; and
a11 and a12 are four (4); and
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar2 corresponds to Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image15.png
96
178
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X3 are N;
a30 is three (3); and
R30 is a binding sited to L1 and two (2) unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Finally, given that the reference does not disclose Compound 1-15,
PNG
media_image6.png
158
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
it is clear that the host does not comprise Compound 1-15 as recited in the present claims.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant, the reference does not disclose the dopant given by Formula (4) as recited in the present claims ([0128]).
Li et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following tetradentate platinum complex (Abstract and Page 2):
PNG
media_image16.png
398
539
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the phosphorescent dopant given by recited Formula (4), i.e.
PNG
media_image5.png
330
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where
M4 is Pt;
Y41 and Y42 are C;
Y43 and Y44 are N;
ring A41 is a carbazole ring, i.e. a C12 heterocyclic group;
ring A42 is a benzene group, i.e. a C6 carbocyclic group;
ring A43 is an imidazole group, i.e. a C3 heterocyclic group;
T41 to T44 are single bonds;
L41 is O;
L42 and L44 are single bonds;
the integers m41, m42, and m44 are one (1);
the integer m43 is zero (0);
R41 is H;
the integer b41 is six (6);
R42 is tert-butyl, i.e. a C4 alkyl;
the integer b42 is one (1);
R44 is tert-butyl, i.e. a C4 alkyl;
the integer b44 is one (1);
R43 is methyl, i.e. a C1 alkyl; and
the integer b43 is one (1).
The reference discloses that utilizing this compound in an electrochemically stable device architecture results in long operational lifetime with an estimated LT97 of over 600 hours at a luminance of 100 cd/m2 (Abstract).
Given that both Kim et al and Li et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising host compounds and phosphorescent dopants, and given that Kim et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the phosphorescent compound as taught by Li et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such dopant compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kim et al in order to obtain an electrochemically stable device with a long operational life with a reasonable expectation of success.
The references do not explicitly disclose that the host and dopant satisfy Equations (1) to (3) recited in the present claims. However, the references disclose the host compound and phosphorescent dopant encompassed by the presented claims, and therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these compounds to meet the requirements of Equations 1 to 3 as recited in the present claims.
The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the host and dopant satisfying Equations 1 to 3 would naturally arise and be achieved by the presence of the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
While Kim et al discloses a display apparatus, the reference does not disclose that the display apparatus comprises a thin film transistor as recited in the present claims ([0001]).
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 Kim et al 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 Kim et al to include the thin film transistor disclosed by Shin et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2013/0292659) in view of Hiroo et al (US 2015/0243913).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0091] - Figure 5):
PNG
media_image12.png
281
767
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 is the anode ([0085]), corresponding to the recited first electrode, and layer 110 is the cathode ([0086]), corresponding to the recited second electrode and faces the first electrode ([0049]). The organic layer comprises layers 130 to 170, where layer 130 is the light emitting layer ([0091]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0040], [0073], and Page 7 – Chemical Formula 13a):
PNG
media_image28.png
607
573
media_image28.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to recited Formula 1, i.e.
(Ar1)n1-(L1)m1-(Ar2)n2,
where:
n1 is two (2);
m1 is one (1);
n2 is one (1); and
n1 + n2 = 3, i.e. ≥ 1; and
L1 is a C6 carbocyclic group’
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar1 corresponds to recited Formula 1(1), i.e.
PNG
media_image14.png
108
368
media_image14.png
Greyscale
where:
Y11 is -N(R15)-, and R15 an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group;
Y12 a single bond;
R11 and R12 are hydrogen;
R15 is binding site to L1;
CY1 and CY2 are C6 carbocyclic groups; and
a11 and a12 are four (4); and
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar2 corresponds to Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image15.png
96
178
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X3 are N;
a30 is three (3); and
R30 is a binding sited to L1 and an unsubstituted C6 aryl group.
Finally, given that the reference does not disclose Compound 1-15,
PNG
media_image6.png
158
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
it is clear that the host does not comprise Compound 1-15 as recited in the present claims.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant, the reference does not disclose the dopant given by Formula (4) as recited in the present claims ([0128]).
Hiroo et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Abstract, Page 56 – Compound 228):
PNG
media_image29.png
376
582
media_image29.png
Greyscale
,
This compound corresponds to the phosphorescent dopant given by recited Formula (4), i.e.
PNG
media_image5.png
330
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
M4 is Pt;
Y41 and Y42 are N;
Y43 and Y44 are C;
rings A41 and A42 are pyridine rings; i.e. C5 heterocyclic groups;
rings A43 and A44 are imidazole rings, i.e. a C3 heterocyclic group;
T41 to T44 are single bonds;
L41 is O;
L42 and L44 are single bonds;
the integers m41, m42, m44 are one (1);
the integer m44 is zero (0);
R41 and R42 are C1 alkyls substituted with a C5 cycloalkyl substituted with a methyl group;
the integers b41 and b42 are one (1);
R44 and R43 are cyano groups; and
the integers b44 and b43 are one (1).
The reference discloses that the compound possessing the 5-membered ring is excellent in chemical stability, and therefore, an organic light emitting device possessing this 5-membered saturated ring possesses excellent drive durability ([0076]). Furthermore, the quaternary carbon atom in the saturated 5-membered ring is bulky, as well as rigid, resulting in enhancement of device efficiency, reduction of driving voltage, and improvement in durability ([0077]).
Given that both Kim et al and Hiroo et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising host compounds and phosphorescent dopants, and given that Kim et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the phosphorescent compound as taught by Hiroo 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 device disclosed by Kim et al in order to obtain an electrochemically stable device with a long operational life with a reasonable expectation of success.
The references do not explicitly disclose that the host and dopant satisfy Equations (1) to (3) recited in the present claims. However, the references disclose the host compound and phosphorescent dopant encompassed by the presented claims, and therefore, it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these compounds to meet the requirements of Equations 1 to 3 as recited in the present claims.
The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the host and dopant satisfying Equations 1 to 2 would naturally arise and be achieved by the presence of the claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1 is a phenyl corresponds to Formula 3-1:
PNG
media_image17.png
86
130
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where Z11 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Ar1 corresponds to Formula 4-1:
PNG
media_image18.png
156
186
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where Z21 and Z22 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R30 corresponds to Formula 5-1:
PNG
media_image19.png
88
130
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
where Z31 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that Kim et al only requires the host compound discussed above, it is clear that the host consists of the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hiroo et al discloses a compound where M4 is Pt; T41 to T44 are single bonds and L42 and L44 are single bonds.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hiroo et al discloses a compound where Y41 and Y42 are N; and Y43 and Y44 are C.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim et al discloses a light emitting layer where the phosphorescent dopant is utilized in an amount of 7.0 wt. %, while the host compound comprises 97 wt. % of the light emitting layer (Example 5 – [0125]-[0128] and [0132]) relative to the total of the host and dopant. Accordingly, it is clear that the amount of host is greater than the amount of the phosphorescent dopant as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, the references teach all of the claimed compounds in the recited light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the emission layer emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength in the range of about 420 nm to about 475 nm, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following device:
PNG
media_image24.png
281
847
media_image24.png
Greyscale
.
In this device, layer 120 corresponds to the anode and layer 120 corresponds to the cathode. The hole injection (170) and hole transport (140) layers correspond to the recited hole transport region and are located between the first electrode (120) and the light emitting layer (130) ([0192]). The electron transport (150) and electron injection (160) layers correspond to the recited electron transport region and are located between the second electrode (110) and the light emitting layer (130) ([0192]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Kim et al and Hiroo et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kim et al discloses that the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer formed from Alq3 ([0130]), i.e. a metal comprising material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in the light of the claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Matsuura as set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Leung et al and Kim et al do not disclose the compound as required in as amended claim 1. However, as discussed in the rejections above, Leung discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
530
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
which is encompassed by present claims. Specifically, this compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
(Ar1)n1-(L1)m1-(Ar2)n2,
where:
n1 is two(2);
m1 is one (1);
n2 is one (1); and
n1 + n2 = 3, i.e. ≥ 1.
L1 corresponds to Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where X1 to X3 are N; a30 is two (2); and R30 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group and a substituted C6 aryl group substituted with C12 heteroaryl group.
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar1 corresponds to recited Formula 1(1), i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
96
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
CY11 and CY12 are C6 carbocyclic groups;
Y11 is a single bond;
Y12 is -N(R15)-, where R15 is a binding site to L1;
R11 and R12 are H.
Furthermore, as discussed in the rejections above, Kim et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image30.png
607
573
media_image30.png
Greyscale
,
which is encompassed by the present claims. Specifically, this compound corresponds to recited Formula 1, i.e.
(Ar1)n1-(L1)m1-(Ar2)n2,
where:
n1 is two (2);
m1 is one (1);
n2 is one (1); and
n1 + n2 = 3, i.e. ≥ 1; and
L1 is a C6 carbocyclic group’
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar1 corresponds to recited Formula 1(1), i.e.
PNG
media_image14.png
108
368
media_image14.png
Greyscale
where:
Y11 is -N(R15)-, and R15 an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group;
Y12 a single bond;
R11 and R12 are hydrogen;
R15 is binding site to L1;
CY1 and CY2 are C6 carbocyclic groups; and
a11 and a12 are four (4); and
In Formula 1 of the claims, Ar2 corresponds to Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image15.png
96
178
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X3 are N; and
R30 is a binding sited to L1 and two (2) unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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