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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10 February 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 13-17, 22, and 26-28 have been amended.
Claims 1-28 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-22, and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0171340 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0171340 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0171340 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0171340 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-22, and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0171340 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0171340 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0171340 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0171340 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) set forth in the last Office action 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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-19, 22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-16, 18-19, 22, and 24-28: Jung discloses an electroluminescent device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraph [0461] and Table 2: Example 36}.
The organic layer comprises an emissive layer comprising the compound shown below as the host material for a phosphorescent light emitting dopant {(paragraph [0461] and Table 2: Example 36 uses compound 35 as the host of the light-emitting layer), (paragraphs [0281]-[0284]: structure of Compound 35)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phosphorescent light emitting compound has the structure shown below {(paragraph [0461] and Table 2: Example 36 uses compound YGD-1 as the phosphorescent light-emitting dopant of the light-emitting layer), (p. 231: structure of Compound YGD-1)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
572
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jung does not teach that the light-emitting layer comprises a second host.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative or an amine compound {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraph [0236]: The hole transporting co-host can be an amine or a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0211] and [0227]: The electron transporting host can be a 1,3,5-triazine derivative.)}.
The Examiner is equating the compound of Jung shown above—which is an 1,3,5-triazine derivative—with the second host of Kondakova.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Jung by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516.
Jung as modified by Kondakova ‘516 does not teach that the additional host has the structure of the instant Formula 1.
Lee ‘220 teaches compounds having the structure of Chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘220 {p. 2, lines 15-17}. The compounds having the structures of Chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘220 are useful as host materials for phosphorescent dopants in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 3, lines 19-26; p. 3, lines 46-50; p. 12, lines 26-33}.
Lee ‘220 exemplifies the compound shown below as a compound having the structure of Chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘220 {p. 9 and p. 18, Compound C-5}.
PNG
media_image3.png
512
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee ‘220 describes the compounds having the structure of Chemical formula 1 of Lee ‘220 as being compounds that have an amine structure that is fused to a dibenzo moiety such as carbazole, as illustrated by the compound shown above {p. 3, lines 31-32}.
Lee ‘220 teaches that the compounds of Lee ‘220 provide devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan {p. 3, lines 19-26; p. 3, lines 46-50; p. 12, lines 26-33}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have further modified the device of Jung by using the host material of Lee ‘220 shown above as the additional host that has hole transporting properties taught by Kondakova, based on the teaching of Kondakova and Lee ‘220. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a compound known to provide organic electroluminescent devices having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Lee ‘220. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the maximum phosphorescence emission wavelength of the compound of Jung is greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K. It is reasonable to presume that the maximum phosphorescence emission wavelength of the compound of Jung being greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K is inherent to Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The compound of Jung shown above is structurally very similar to the instant compounds G-164, G-165, and G-166. The instant compounds G-164, G-165, and G-166 are compounds listed in the current claim 17, which depends from claim 1, which requires that the compounds of claim 1 have a maximum phosphorescence emission wavelength greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K. The difference between the instant compounds G-164, G-165, and G-166 and the compound of Jung being the number and attachment points of the phenylene groups of the phenyl, biphenyl, and terphenyl substituents of the compounds. However, each Jung {paragraphs [0013], [0033], [0064], [0068], and [0083]} and the instant specification {paragraph [0087]} each describe these variations as predictable options for the compounds of Jung and the instant specification. Given the structural similarities described above, the maximum phosphorescence emission wavelength of the compound of Jung shown above would be greater than or equal to 460 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm at 77 K.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 17: Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 teach all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Jung does not exemplify a specific compound having the structure of one of the compounds of the current claim 17.
However, Jung teaches that the compounds of Jung have the structure of Chemical Formula 1 of Jung {paragraphs [0008] and [0038]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
554
874
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jung teaches that Ar1a of Chemical Formula 1 of Jung can be optionally be biphenyl in addition optionally being terphenyl as in the compound of Jung shown above {paragraphs [0013], [0033], and [0064]}. Jung exemplifies that the biphenyl group,
PNG
media_image5.png
114
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, is an optional alternative as Ar1a of Chemical Formula 1 of Jung {paragraph [0064]}.
Jung teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Jung allow for organic light-emitting devices having improved efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or improved lifetime characteristics {paragraph [0018]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Jung shown above by substituting the biphenyl group,
PNG
media_image5.png
114
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, in place of the terphenyl group as Ar1a of Chemical Formula 1 of Jung, based on the teaching of Jung. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of the biphenyl group,
PNG
media_image5.png
114
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups Ar1b of Chemical Formula 1 of Jung), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices, which in this case means producing additional compounds allowing for organic light-emitting devices having improved efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or improved lifetime characteristics, as taught by Jung.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 4: Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 does not exemplify that the compound of Lee ‘220 shown above is deuterated at a position equivalent to the instant R or Rx.
Li teaches electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Jung such that the host materials of the light emitting layer were deuterated, based on the teaching of Li. one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have deuterated at least one of the positions equivalent to the instant R or Rx, because R and Rx would represent a finite number of possible positions for substitution of deuterium onto the compound of Lee ‘220, with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwong et al. (US 2003/0072964 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”).
Regarding claims 20-21: Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 does not exemplify a phosphorescent light emitting dopant comprising a structure of the instant Formula 3.
Kwong teaches a cyclometalated complex of iridium as a dopant for an organic electroluminescent device having the structure shown below {(paragraph [0163]; The present invention includes compounds having Formula IV), (paragraph [0176]; The compounds of the invention can be used as emitters in organic electroluminescent devices), (p. 11, Formula IV)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Kwong’s Formula IV)]
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kwong exemplifies the compound shown below {paragraphs [0200]-[0205] as well as paragraph [0137] describing Fig. 1: Compound 3}.
PNG
media_image7.png
436
664
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kwong sought to provide compounds that when utilized in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with high external quantum and luminous efficiencies as well as improved device lifetimes {p. 11, paragraph [0178]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic electroluminescent device of Jung by using the compound of Kwong shown above as the phosphorescent dopant, based on the teachings of Kwong. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means using a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant that when utilized in organic electroluminescent devices provided devices with high external quantum and luminous efficiencies as well as improved device lifetimes, as taught by Kwong.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0337348 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova ‘516”) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0077220—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Lee ‘220”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 23: Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 does not exemplify a display device comprising the organic optoelectronic device of Galan described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic electroluminescent device of Jung as modified by Kondakova and Lee ‘220 to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights