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All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/29/2025.
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 8/29/2025. In particular, original Claims 1 and 10 have been amended to recite a combination of 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, 7-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2017/0352816, cited on IDS filed on 7/28/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon et al discloses the following compound (Page 9 - Compound 8):
PNG
media_image1.png
342
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
55
99
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where m is one (1).
L corresponds to Formula (3) of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
127
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where p is three (3); q is one (1); and p + q is four (4).
D corresponds to Formula 8:
PNG
media_image4.png
134
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 is single bond; Z2 is NR7, where R7 is a phenyl group, i.e. a C6 aromatic group; R3 and R4 are H; and s and t are both four (4).
A is:
PNG
media_image5.png
256
148
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore does not correspond to recited Formula (6):
PNG
media_image6.png
116
134
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. R1 and R8 are both phenyl, however, A as disclosed by the reference does not contain a CN group as required by recited Formula (6). However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1B(1) ([0088]):
PNG
media_image7.png
291
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where X25 can be C(R25), where R25 can be a cyano group ([0085], [0090], and [0096]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Formula (6) of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image6.png
116
134
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that, as discussed above, m is one (1), and given the instant claim recites subject matter when m is two (2), the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 3, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that, as discussed above, m is one (1), and given the instant claim recites subject matter when m is two (2), the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 4, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that, as discussed above, m is one (1), and given the instant claim recites subject matter when m is two (2), the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 5, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that, as discussed above, m is one (1), and given the instant claim recites subject matter when m is two (2), the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that, as discussed above, m is one (1), and given the instant claim recites subject matter when m is two (2), the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 8, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses does not disclose Compound (1-2) of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
166
154
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. the reference discloses an indolocarbazole core that has a different bonding arrangement than that found required by Compound (1-2). However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1A(1) ([0082]):
PNG
media_image9.png
178
297
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which discloses an indolocarbazole core possessing the bonding arrangement required by Compound (1-2) of the claims. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound (1-2) of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference does not disclose Compound (2-2) of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
206
200
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
However, attention is directed to Formula 1B ([0084]):
PNG
media_image11.png
213
115
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where X21 to X25 can be C(R21) to CR(25) or N, where one of X21 to X25 can be N ([0085]-[0086]).
Furthermore, the reference discloses an indolocarbazole core that has a different bonding arrangement than that found required by Compound (2-2). However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1A(1) ([0082]):
PNG
media_image9.png
178
297
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
which discloses an indolocarbazole core possessing the bonding arrangement required by Compound (2-2) of the claims. Accordingly, from the discussion above, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound (2-2) of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, Jeon et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising
a first electrode (Figure 1 – layer 11 – [0219]); a second electrode facing the first electrode (Figure 1 – Layer 19 and [0219]); and a light emitting layer disposed between the electrodes (Abstract). The light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Abstract and Page 9 -Compound 8):
PNG
media_image1.png
342
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
55
99
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where m is one (1).
L corresponds to Formula (3) of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
127
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where p is three (3); q is one (1); and p + q is four (4).
D corresponds to Formula 8:
PNG
media_image4.png
134
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 is single bond; Z2 is NR7, where R7 is a phenyl group, i.e. a C6 aromatic group; R3 and R4 are H; and s and t are both four (4).
A is:
PNG
media_image5.png
256
148
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore does not correspond to recited Formula (6):
PNG
media_image6.png
116
134
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. R1 and R8 are both phenyl, however, A as disclosed by the reference does not contain a CN group as required by recited Formula (6). However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1B(1) ([0088]):
PNG
media_image7.png
291
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where X25 can be C(R25), where R25 can be a cyano group ([0085], [0090], and [0096]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Formula (6) of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image6.png
116
134
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that, as discussed above, m is one (1), and given the instant claim recites subject matter when m is two (2), the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 12, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that, as discussed above, m is one (1), and given the instant claim recites subject matter when m is two (2), the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 13, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that, as discussed above, m is one (1), and given the instant claim recites subject matter when m is two (2), the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 15, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer, i.e. an emitting layer, comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 16, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting layer, .i.e. an emitting material layer, comprises the disclosed compound, i.e. recited second compound, and a host compound, i.e. recited first compound (Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises a light emitting layer, i.e. a first emitting material layer, disposed between the first and second electrodes; and a hole transport layer, i.e. a second emitting material layer, disposed between the first electrode and the light emitting layer, i.e. the first emitting material layer ([0225]).
Regarding claim 19, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises an electron transport layer, i.e. a third emitting material layer, disposed opposed the hole transport layer, i.e. the second emitting material layer ([0259]).
Regarding claim 20, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises a substrate disposed under the first electrode ([0220]). Accordingly, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device as recited in the present claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2017/0352816, cited on IDS filed on 7/28/2021) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16, and 18-20 above, and in view of Raj (US 2013/0043803).
The discussion with respect to Jeon et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 17, Jeon et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer may have a structure in which a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer are stacking on each other to emit white light ([0225]). However, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises a third compound as recited in the present claims.
Raj discloses that the most common techniques for generating white light in an organic light emitting device include multi-layer structures of red, blue, and green emitters and doping of a single emission layer with multiple emitters ([0006]).
In view of the teaching in Raj that a common technique for generating white light in organic light emitting devices is to combine multiple dopants in a single layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the red, blue and green dopants in the organic light emitting device disclosed by Jeon et al to obtain a single light emitting layer comprising a third compound, i.e. either the red or green emitter, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Regarding Jeon et al, Applicants argue that a person having an ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the importance of the cyano group substituted on the azine moiety. However, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary that it would have been obvious to select any of the substituents disclosed by Jeon on the azine moiety, including the cyano group presently claimed and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants argue Jeon only discloses organic compounds where the cyano group is
linked to the phenyl group substituted to the indolocarbazole moiety or the azine moiety, or to the phenylene moiety between the azine moiety and the indolocarbazole moiety and none of any specific compounds in Jeon includes the cyano group substituted to the nuclear carbon atoms in the azine moiety. However, the fact that the reference does not exemplify the instantly claimed compound does not obviate the teachings of the reference as a whole, i.e. a fair reading of the reference reveals that the general teachings of the reference disclose a compound encompassed by the present claims. To that end it is noted that “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Applicants argue that the claims are not rendered obvious over Jeon because of the unexpected superior properties of the claims compound as demonstrated in the instant Specification. Specifically, Applicants compare:
(a) Comparative Example 3 in which the light emitting layer (EML) comprises Reference Compound 3 (corresponding to Compound 8 in Jeon) as a dopant to Inventive Example 2 where the EML comprises Compound 1-2 as a dopant:
PNG
media_image12.png
337
312
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
349
307
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(b) Comparative Example 10 comprising Reference Compound 10 as a dopant to Inventive Example 2-2, where the EML include Compound 2-2 as a dopant:
PNG
media_image14.png
379
298
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
337
270
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where the inventive examples have an increased T95 lifetime compared to the comparative examples. However, while the comparisons of the inventive and comparative examples are proper side-by-side comparisons, the inventive examples are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the prior art for the reasons set forth below.
In the inventive compounds, D is:
PNG
media_image16.png
156
284
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
while claims 1 and 10 recite that D has the formula:
PNG
media_image17.png
146
380
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where for m equal to 1, R3 and R4 are H, Z1 is a single bond; and Z2 is NR7, where R7 is phenyl. The inventive compounds exemplify only one possible bonding arrangement of the ring containing Z1 and Z2. Accordingly, it is unclear of the obtained increase in T95 lifetime of the organic light emitting devices comprising the inventive compounds is indicative of all compounds encompassed by the present claims or only for the particular compounds exemplified in the instant Specification.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)-272-1197. 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 1767
Prosecution Insights