DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/29/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 3 and 22 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/04/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 20, 22, 24, 29, 30, 41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/04/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 11, 12, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) and Shin et al. (KR 10-2013-0121597) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/04/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 13, 14, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) and Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/04/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 15, 16, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) and Kambe et al. (US 2010/0181560 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/04/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) in further evidence of Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/04/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
Claims 8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) in further evidence of Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/04/26 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
The rejection of Claims 17, 18, 36-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2016/0155976 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/04/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2018/0301629 A1 as the English equivalent of publication WO 2016/152544 A1 (herein referred to as “Hatakeyama et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 20, 24, 27, 29, 30, 41, and 42, Hatakeyama et al. discloses a light-emission-layer material comprising a compound of formula (1) (as dopant material) and anthracene-based host material of formula (3) (Abstract; [0010], [0184]). The dopant material includes the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
324
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 5) (blue dopant) which is blue-emitting (Table 1, page 105) such that X1-2 = NR14 (with R14 = phenyl or biphenyl), d = e = 0, c = 1, and R11 = C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Formula 4. Hatakeyama et al. discloses that the host material includes the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
195
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 56) (first host) such that a = b = 0 and R1-2 = C10 or C16 aryl group (naphthyl or 4-naphthylphenyl) of Applicant’s Formula 1. The host material can be a combination of a plurality of kinds of compounds ([0185]); its inventive compounds of formula (3) may further be substituted by deuterium ([0019]). The light-emission-layer material comprises the light-emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting diode) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
542
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1) comprising substrate (101), anode (102), hole-injecting layer (103), hole-transporting layer (104) (electron-blocking layer), light-emitting layer (105), electron-transporting layer (106) (hole-blocking layer), electron-injecting layer (107), and cathode (108); the hole-transporting layer comprises carbazole derivatives, such as the following ([0181]):
PNG
media_image4.png
349
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Table 1; page 106) (electron blocking material) (a heteroaryl-substituted amine derivative) such that a = b = c = 0, R4 = C6 aryl group (phenyl), and R3 = C12 hetero aryl group (substituted carbazolyl group) of Applicant’s Formula 6, while the electron-transporting layer comprises compounds including pyridine derivatives, such as the following ([0194]):
PNG
media_image5.png
263
425
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Table 1; page 106) (first hole blocking material) (an azine derivative). Hatakeyama et al. discloses standards methods in the art to form any of the organic layers of the organic electroluminescent (EL) device, including vapor deposition, spin coating, and the like; the host material(s) and dopant material(s) can thus be co-deposited to form the light-emitting layer ([0359]). However, Hatakeyama et al. does not explicitly disclose 1) the second host (i.e., a deuterated anthracene derivative) as recited by the Applicant nor 2) the relative weight % ratios as recited by the Applicant.
Regarding point 1, Nakano et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
260
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 21) such that a = b = 0, R1 = C6 aryl group (phenyl), R2 = C12 heteroaryl group dibenzofuranyl), and x + m = 20 of Applicant’s Formula 3; x + y + m = 20 of Host 55 as recited in Claims 41 and 42. Nakano et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in increased performance ([0225]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the host material as disclosed by Nakano et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. (as additional host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Nakano et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with increased performance. However, Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. does not explicitly disclose the relative weight % ratios as recited by the Applicant.
Regarding point 2, it is the position of the Office that devices comprising the recited relative ratios can easily be envisioned and thus produced by one of ordinary skill in the art during the normal course of experimentation. The motivation is provided by the fact it has been long established that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see also MPEP 2144.05). Hatakeyama et al. clearly teaches the viability of using a plurality of compounds to comprise the host material; standard methods in the art are taught to be capable of forming the light-emitting layer. Furthermore, light-emitting layers comprising two (or more) host materials are well-known in the art, wherein the ratio of the first and second host materials can range from 3:7 to 7:3 “in view of driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan” of an organic EL device as evidenced by Lee et al. (see [0050]). Hence, it is the position of the Office the production of the light-emitting layer compositions as recited by the Applicant could have been predictably achieved with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 3 and 22, Hatakeyama et al. discloses another embodiment for the anthracene host material:
PNG
media_image7.png
188
355
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 56) (corresponds to Host 11).
Regarding Claim 43, Nakano et al. discloses another embodiment (which can be alternatively incorporated as the second host):
PNG
media_image8.png
263
467
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 21).
Hatakeyama et al. discloses an alternative host material:
PNG
media_image9.png
256
408
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(page 60) (where Y = O ([0020]); such compounds are encompassed by the following formula:
PNG
media_image10.png
712
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0015]) where X’s = independently (3-X1) to (3-X3) and Ar3 = formula (4) (among others) (where Y = O) ([0017]); formula (4) includes any one of the following groups:
PNG
media_image11.png
273
407
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0035]). However, Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. does not explicitly disclose first and second hosts as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify Compound (3-48-Y) as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. (above) such that the following compound results:
PNG
media_image12.png
161
249
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(first host). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one group for a functional equivalent selected from a high finite list of viable embodiments for Ar3 (when it is equal to formula (4)) as envisioned by Hatakeyama et al., thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
15. Claims 11, 12, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) as applied above and in further view of Shin et al. (KR 10-2013-0121597).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2018/0301629 A1 as the English equivalent of publication WO 2016/152544 A1 (herein referred to as “Hatakeyama et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. discloses the organic light-emitting devices of Claims 1 and 20 as shown above. Hatakeyama et al. discloses the presence of a hole-transporting layer directly between the hole-injecting layer and the light-emitting layer, which can comprise compounds such as compound HT (Table 1; page 106). However, Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the electron-blocking material as recited by the Applicant.
Shin et al. discloses the following compound as material comprising the hole-transporting layer of an organic EL (electroluminescent) device, the use of which results in a device with excellent luminance and efficiency ([0039]):
PNG
media_image13.png
194
209
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(page 7; [0009], [0147]) (corresponds to H8 as recited in Claims 12 and 31). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Shin et al. (above) into hole-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Shin et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds results in an organic EL device with excellent luminance and efficiency.
16. Claims 13, 14, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) as applied above and in further view of Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2018/0301629 A1 as the English equivalent of publication WO 2016/152544 A1 (herein referred to as “Hatakeyama et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. discloses the organic light-emitting devices of Claims 1 and 20 as shown above. Hatakeyama et al. discloses the presence of an electron-transporting layer directly between the hole-injecting layer and the light-emitting layer comprising compounds such as ET-1 (Table 1; page 106). However, Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the first hole-blocking material as recited by the Applicant.
Iwakuma et al. discloses the following compound as material comprising the electron-transporting layer of an organic EL (electroluminescent) device, the use of which results in a device with high purity of color ([0007], [0012], [0064]):
PNG
media_image14.png
326
419
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(page 24) (first hole blocking material) (corresponds to E3 as recited in Claims 14 and 33). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Iwakuma et al. (above) into the electron-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Iwakuma et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds results in an organic EL device with improved properties, such as high color purity.
17. Claims 15, 16, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) as applied above and in further view of Kambe et al. (US 2010/0181560 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2018/0301629 A1 as the English equivalent of publication WO 2016/152544 A1 (herein referred to as “Hatakeyama et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. discloses the organic light-emitting devices of Claims 1 and 20 as shown above. Hatakeyama et al. discloses the presence of an electron-transporting layer directly between the hole-injecting layer and the light-emitting layer comprising compounds such as ET-1 (Table 1; page 106). However, Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the second hole-blocking material as recited by the Applicant.
Kambe et al. discloses the following compound as material for use as electron-transporting material (comprising the electron-transporting layer) of an organic EL device:
PNG
media_image15.png
208
440
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(page 3) (second hole blocking material) (corresponds to F2 as recited in Claims 16 and 35). It would have been obvious to substitute the compound as disclosed by Kambe et al. (above) for compounds such as ET-1 in the electron-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. The motivation is provided by the fact that the substitution merely involves the exchange of one electron-transporting material for a functional equivalent (i.e., another known and viable electron-transporting material) used in an identical manner in the same field of invention, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
18. Claims 17, 18, 36-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2016/152544 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (US 2020/0111972 A1) as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) as applied above and in further view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0155976 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2018/0301629 A1 as the English equivalent of publication WO 2016/152544 A1 (herein referred to as “Hatakeyama et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. discloses the organic light-emitting devices of Claims 1 and 20 as shown above. Hatakeyama et al. discloses a light-emission-layer material comprising a compound of formula (1) (as dopant material) and anthracene-based host material of formula (3) (Abstract; [0010], [0184]); the host material can comprise a plurality of compounds ([0185]). The dopant material is blue-emitting (compound (1-1152); page 5; Table 1). Hatakeyama et al. discloses that the light-emission-layer material has optimum light-emission characteristics, the utilization of which results in an excellent organic electroluminescent (EL) device. However, Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the additional features as recited by the Applicant.
Kim et al. discloses the following organic EL device:
PNG
media_image16.png
748
659
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 4) comprising substrate (201), anode (202), hole-transporting layer (212), first emitting layer (214) (first emitting material layer), charge-generating layer (240) (first charge generation layer), second emitting layer (224) (third emitting material layer), charge-generating layer (250) (second charge generation layer), third emitting layer (234), fourth emitting layer (235) (second emitting material layer), and cathode (204). The light-emitting layers comprise host material(s) in combination with dopant material; the former includes anthracene derivatives ([0111]). The first and fourth emitting layers are blue-emitting layers, while the second emitting layer is a yellow-green emitting layer ([0027]-[0029]). Kim et al. further discloses the use of a color filter (1145) which converts emitted light from the EL layer (1180) (comprising the organic layers as described above) to specific wavelengths for each of the red, green, and blue pixel areas of a display (Fig. 5; [0137], [0146]). Kim et al. discloses that such an architecture results in an organic EL device with improved efficiency (Abstract). It would have been obvious to incorporate the light-emission-layer material as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. in view of Nakano et al. as evidenced by Lee et al. to the blue light-emitting layers (i.e., first and fourth emitting layers) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hatakeyama et al. which teaches its inventive composition has optimum light-emission characteristics which, when utilized, results in an excellent organic EL device.
Response to Arguments
19. The Applicant argues that one or ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosure of Nakano et al. would either i) deuterate the anthracene host material of Hatakeyama et al. and use it as a single host or ii) deuterate two anthracene host materials and use them as first host and second host (pages 5-6). The Applicant further argues that the compound as disclosed by Nakano et al. “cannot be a fused ring derivative of another anthracene as a host material . . . and Hatakeyama would not have sufficiently guided one of ordinary skill in the art” from using the compound (pages 6-7). Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that Hatakeyama et al. generally discloses that the host material may be “a combination of a plurality of kinds” ([0185]); Nakano et al. discloses a particular class of deuterated host materials which has been incorporated into the light-emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent (EL) device as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. as part of that plurality of kinds (of host material) which, when used “in addition to a protium compound [such as the host material as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al.]” results in an increase in performance of an organic EL device ([0225]).
20. The Applicant has argued for unexpected results to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection as set forth above (pages 8-10). However, the Office finds the data unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Although not exhaustive, notice the rather broad scope of the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (OLED) of Claim 1, which recites highly broad blocking materials (“a heteroaryl-substituted amine derivative,” “an azine derivative,” and “benzimidazole derivative”) which have not been reasonably represented in the Examples as presented by the Applicant.
Conclusion
21. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer A Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights