DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 01/28/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the objection to claim 20 is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claim 20 as being of improper dependent form, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, 12-13, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 107488182 B), of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Xu above and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1), of claim 5 as being unpatentable of Xu above and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1), of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Xu above and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1), and of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Xu and Matsudate above and further in view of Shin et al. 9US 2018/0166647 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1, 9, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 19-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 9, the claims contain the following limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
78
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This limitation introduces uncertainty into the claim because Formulae 6-1 through 6-5 do not comprise Y22.
In continuing examination, this limitation is being interpreted as applying to Formulae 6-6 to 6-12 and 6-17 to 6-28 only.
Also with respect to claims 1 and 9, the claims contain the following limitation.
PNG
media_image2.png
86
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This limitation appears to be an if/then proviso, however, the second half of the proviso, which is required when T11 is one of Formulae 6-13 to 6-16 and Y21 is oxygen or sulfur, is never stated.
In continuing examination, this limitation is being interpreted as, “—wherein, when the moiety represented by *-(T11)n11-*’ is represented by one selected from Formulae 6-13 to 6-16, then [[and]] Y21 is O or S”.
Claims 2-8, 10, 12, 13, and 19-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claim 1-3, 6, 9-10, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2013/0118269 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Park discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer comprising a light-emitting layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0248) and the emitting layer comprises a host compound such as compound 18 (paragraph 0811 of the translation and 0064 of the original document), which has been recreated below for the sake of clarity.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Park Chemical Formula 1 (pictured in paragraph 0017 of the original document), when the benzoxazolyl at R7 is represented by Structural Formula 3 (paragraph 0029 of the translation and pictured in paragraph 0030 of the original document).
Park also teaches that, in Structural Formula 3, T2 is C(R41), R41 is an aryl group of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), T1 is N(R44), and R44 can be the location of the bond between Structural Formula 3 and R7 of the acridine moiety of Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0035).
Such a modification produces the compound below.
PNG
media_image4.png
498
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X11-X13 are nitrogen atoms, T11 is a group of Formula 6-1, n11 is 1, Z11 is a group of Formula 3-1, L11 to L13 are each a single bond, a11 to a13 are each 1, R11 to R13 are not present, E11 and E12 are each a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group, and b11 and b12 are each 1.
In Formula 6-1, Y21 is C(R21a)(R21b), R21a and R21b are both a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, and A21 is a benzene group.
In Formula 3-1, X31 is C(R31) and R31 is a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group, X32 is a nitrogen atom, b33 is 4, and R33 is a hydrogen atom.
Park includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Park being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any bonding position between Chemical Formula 1 and Structural Formula 3, as well as any possible substituent on Structural Formula 3, such as a phenyl group, from the finite list of possible bonding positions and substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an aromatic compound which results in an organic electroluminescent device with low driving voltage and excellent luminescence efficiency (paragraph 0001), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Park teaches the device of claim 1, and the interlayer (the organic layer) further compromises a hole transport layer, an emission layer comprising the compound as a host, and an electron transport layer in that order (paragraph 0202).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound as a host in the emission layer of an light-emitting device with the claimed structure, as taught by Park.
With respect to claim 6, Park teaches the device of claim 3, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound discussed in parent claim 1 to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment 19 of the claimed invention, as given on page 28 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Park reads on the claims.
Park is silent to the emissive color of the compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as a material in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Park, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Park was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claims 9-10, 12-13, and 19, Park discloses compound 18 (page 23 of the untranslated document), which has been recreated below for the sake of clarity.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Park Chemical Formula 1 (pictured in paragraph 0017 of the original document), when the benzoxazolyl at R7 is represented by Structural Formula 3 (paragraph 0029 of the translation and pictured in paragraph 0030 of the original document).
Park also teaches that, in Structural Formula 3, T2 is C(R41), R41 is an aryl group of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), T1 is N(R44), and R44 can be the location of the bond between Structural Formula 3 and R7 of the acridine moiety of Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0035).
Such a modification produces the compound below.
PNG
media_image4.png
498
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when each of X11-X13 are nitrogen atoms (claim 10), T11 is a group of Formula 6-1, n11 is 1, Z11 is a group of Formula 3-1, L11 to L13 are each a single bond (claims 12 and 13), a11 to a13 are each 1, R11 to R13 are not present (claim 19), E11 and E12 are each a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group (claim 19), and b11 and b12 are each 1.
In Formula 6-1, Y21 is C(R21a)(R21b), R21a and R21b are both a C1 alkyl (methyl) group (claim 19), and A21 is a benzene group. R22, R22a, R22b are not present (claim 19).
In Formula 3-1, X31 is C(R31) and R31 is a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group (claim 19), X32 is a nitrogen atom, b33 is 4, and R33 is a hydrogen atom (claim 19). R31a, R31b, R32a and R32b are not present (claim 19).
Park includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Park being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any bonding position between Chemical Formula 1 and Structural Formula 3, as well as any possible substituent on Structural Formula 3, such as a phenyl group, from the finite list of possible bonding positions and substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an aromatic compound which results in an organic electroluminescent device with low driving voltage and excellent luminescence efficiency (paragraph 0001), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 20, Park teaches the compound of claim 9, and the compound is instant compound 19.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2013/0118269 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Park does not teach that the emission layer comprises a first compound which is a fluorescent or TADF compound.
In analogous art, Hatakeyama discloses a polycyclic compound as a material for an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (abstract).
Hatakeyama teaches that an excellent organic EL element can be obtained by using a compound having a specific structure among polycyclic aromatic compounds each having a plurality of aromatic rings linked with a boron atom and a nitrogen atom (paragraph 0022). Hatakeyama also teaches that the compounds achieve high efficiency as a TADF material because of having small ΔEST (paragraph 0565) and that they are preferably used in the light emitting layer (paragraph 0021).
Hatakeyama gives an example of such a compound, such as Compound (1-1A) (page 4), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
298
526
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 114 (Dopant 1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hatakeyama reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the difference between the lowest excited singlet energy level of the TADF compound and lowest excited triplet energy level of the TADF compound being less than or equal to 0.3 eV. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when compound (1-1A) is used as a host material in the emission layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Park in view of Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Hatakeyama in the emission layer of Park in order to achieve high efficiency and deep blue color as a TADF material because of having small ΔEST, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2013/0118269 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Park teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Park does not teach that the emission layer comprises a first compound of instant Formula 4-2.
In analogous art, Hatakeyama teaches a polycyclic aromatic compound for use as a phosphorescent host in the emission layer of an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0037). Hatakeyama also teaches the compounds function as a host material with large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy (paragraph 0046).
Hatakeyama gives examples of the inventive compounds, such as Compound (1-1) (page 14), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
266
402
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 4-2 when A41-A43 are each a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) ring, Y41 is a boron atom, X42 and X43 are oxygen atoms, n41 is 0 so that X41 is not present, c41 and c42 are 4 and c43 is 3 and R41, R42, and R43 are all hydrogen atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Hatakeyama in the emitting layer of the device of Park in order to obtain a host material with large HOMO-LUMO gap and high triplet excitation energy, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2013/0118269 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Park teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above. However, Park does not fairly suggest a thin-film transistor wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source and drain electrode and the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode.
In analogous art, Matsudate teaches an organic light emitting device. Matsudate teaches a design for an organic electroluminescent display which allows the device to be controlled and driven (abstract, and paragraphs 0003 and 0062). Matsudate teaches that the taught configuration of a source electrode, a drain electrode, an active layer, and a gate electrode, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor is applicable to general organic electroluminescent displays to achieve high manufacturing yields (paragraphs 0062-0069, and Fig. 11).
In view of the motivation of using the display component configuration of Matsudate as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the display device of Park using the component configuration of Matsudate in order to provide an organic electroluminescent display and achieve high manufacturing yields and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2013/0118269 A, using the provided translation for references) and Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Park and Matsudate teach the electronic apparatus of claim 7, as discussed above.
However, neither Park nor Matsudate teach that the apparatus further comprises a color filter.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a white LED and a color conversion layer to filter light emitted from an OLED. Shin teaches that a color conversion layer is capable of filtering the light produced by an OLED in order to produce a full color image (paragraph 0133).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a color conversion layer into the electronic apparatus of Park and Matsudate in order to produce a full color image, as taught by Shin.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights