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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 8 are amended, claim 2 is cancelled, and claim 23 is new due to Applicant's amendment dated 01/23/2026. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10-23 are pending and claims 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 2 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 2 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 01/23/2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 12-22 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 previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/23/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 12-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 2020/0006676 A1) in view of Sotoyama (US 2003/0186081 A1) and Kaafarani (Kaafarani, Bilal R., et al. "Bis (carbazolyl) derivatives of pyrene and tetrahydropyrene: synthesis, structures, optical properties, electrochemistry, and electroluminescence." Journal of Materials Chemistry C 1.8 (2013): 1638-1650.) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/23/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sotoyama, Kaafarani, and Lee (US 2018/0013078 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/23/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sotoyama, Kaafarani, and Chen (US 2019/0119312 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/23/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Kang (US 2016/0104844 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/23/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 35-39 of the reply dated 01/23/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 10-22 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues on pages 35-39 that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended which require that in Formula 1-1, at least one R1 is a group represented by Formula 2.
Examiner's response –As discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Sotoyama (US 2004/0053069 A1) teaches a compound that reads on the claimed Formula 1-1 wherein at least one R1 is a group represented by Formula 2. Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues on page 39 that the newly added claim 23 is patentable at least because it would require excessive picking and choosing between the dopant, sensitizer, and host based on the broad disclosure of the prior art.
Examiner's response –As discussed in the rejection of claim 23 below, the limitations of claim 23 are within the scope of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123.
In the present instance, Kwak teaches the electron transport host may be selected from H-E2 or H-E(1), among others (¶ [0193]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Kwak, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute H-E2 with H-E(1), because Kwak teaches H-E(1) may suitably be selected as the electron transport host. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the electron transport host in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and possess the benefits taught by Kwak. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound H-E(1), because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable electron transport hosts taught by Kwak, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the electron transport host in the emission layer of the device of Kwak and possessing the benefits taught by Kwak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising electron transport hosts having the benefits taught by Kwak in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Additionally, Chen teaches tetradentate platinum compounds represented by Formula I for use in OLEDs (¶ [0015]-[0016]). Chen teaches such compounds are very efficient and may provide improved device efficiency (¶ [0236]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I include compound 95050 (pg. 115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensitizer of Kwak’s compound 4-333 with a compound of Chen’s Formula I, based on the teaching of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a very efficient compound and provide improved device efficiency, as taught by Chen.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 95050, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable compounds represented by Formula I and taught by Chen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen and possessing the benefits taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Chen’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Chen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A and F, wherein the first compound contains a transition metal represented by Formula 101 (see claim 9) and wherein the second compound is represented by Formula 1-1 (see claim 3), in the reply filed on 05/12/2025 is acknowledged.
This species reads on claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 12-23. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added claim 23 recites in the first compound, A101 is a benzimidazole group and A103 is a carbazole group. While the instant specification recites A101 and A103 may each be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C30 heterocyclic group (instant ¶ [0102]). However, the instant specification does not recite A101 may specifically be a benzimidazole group, A103 may specifically be a carbazole group, nor does the instant specification recite a benzimidazole group and a carbazole group are examples of the substituted or unsubstituted C1-C30 heterocyclic group. While the instant specification recites the compounds on instant pgs. 449-560 which read on the claimed Formula 101-3 wherein A101 is a benzimidazole group and A103 is a carbazole group, there is not sufficient support for all first compounds that read on the claimed Formula 101-3 wherein A101 is a benzimidazole group and A103 is a carbazole group. For this reason, claim 23 is considered to have new matter.
The newly added claim 23 recites “the electron-transporting compound comprises at least one cyano group”. While the instant specification provides support for the electron-transporting compound includes at least one electron-transporting moiety, wherein the electron-transporting moiety may be a cyano group (instant ¶ [0185] and [0187]) and further provides support for the electron-transporting compound being selected from one of the compounds exemplified in instant pgs. 86-368, which each include at least one cyano group (¶ [0292]), the instant specification does not provide sufficient support for the electron-transporting compound comprising at least one cyano group. For this reason, claim 23 is considered to have new mater.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites Formulae 2-1 and 3-1 which read on the claimed Formulas 2 and 3 wherein the sum of c3 and c4 is 0. However, claim 1 (of which claim 7 depends upon) recites the sum of c3 and c4 is 1 or greater. Since Formulae 2-1 and 3-1 do not satisfy this limitation, it is unclear how Formulae 2-1 and 3-1 read on all the limitations of claim 1. For purposes of examination, Formulae 2-1 and 3-1 will be interpreted as not present.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 7, the Formulae 2-1 and 3-1 do not properly depend from the formula recited in claim 1. If Formulae 2-1 and 3-1 are selected, they do not satisfy all the requirements of Formulas 2 and 3. Thus claim 7 does not properly depend from claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4, 6-8, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 2020/0006676 A1) in view of Sotoyama (US 2004/0053069 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 12-14, and 17-19, Kwak teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer including a host (third compound), a dopant (second compound), and a sensitizer (first compound) (abstract). Kwak teaches examples of such devices including Example 1 which includes an anode; a hole injection layer; a hole transport layer; an emission layer including a host comprising compounds H-H1 and H-E2, a sensitizer of compound 4-333, and a dopant of compound FD-17; an electron transport layer; an electron injection layer; and a cathode (¶ [0429]-[0432]; Table 1 on pg. 292).
Compound 4-333 (first compound) has the structure below (pg. 292) and thus reads on the claimed Formula 101 wherein: M11 is a third-row transition metal; L11 is represented by Formula 101-3; L12 is not required to be present; n11 is 1; n12 is 0; A101 is a C4-alkyl-substituted C6 carbocyclic group, A102 is a C6-aryl-substituted C5 heterocyclic group, A103 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, and A104 is an unsubstituted C9 heterocyclic group; Y101 is O, and Y102 to Y104 are each a chemical bond; T101 and T102 are each a single bond, T103 is N(R93), and R93 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl.
4-333:
PNG
media_image1.png
206
241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, the host (third compound) includes compounds H-H1 and H-E2. H-H1 has the structure below (pg. 94), is a hole transport type host (¶ [0194]), and thus reads on the claimed hole-transporting compound (claim 12). Additionally, H-H1 includes phenyl, which is a π electron-deficient nitrogen-free cyclic group (see instant ¶ [0051]) and a carbazole (claims 13-14). H-E2 has the structure below (pg. 19), is an electron transport host (¶ [0193]), and thus reads on the claimed electron-transporting compound. Additionally, H-E2 includes at least one π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing cyclic group of pyrimidine and a π electron-deficient nitrogen-free cyclic group of phenyl (see instant ¶ [0051]) (claims 12-14).
H-H1:
PNG
media_image2.png
372
223
media_image2.png
Greyscale
H-E2:
PNG
media_image3.png
176
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The dopant FD-17 in the emission layer fails to read on one of Formulae 1-1 to 1-4 (see structure on pg. 292) and thus Kwak fails to teach a composition comprising a second compound represented by one of Formula 1-1 to 1-4. However, Kwak does teach the dopant is fluorescence and may include a pyrene core (¶ [0197] and [0207]).
Sotoyama teaches an organic EL element having excellent light-emitting efficiency, emission luminance, and color purity by including a pyrene compound represented by formula (1) as a luminescent material (abstract). In formula (1), each of R1 to R4 is represented by formula (2) (abstract). Sotoyama teaches examples of compounds represented by formula (1) including Example 3 (¶ [0185]-[0186]).
(1):
PNG
media_image4.png
106
141
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(2):
PNG
media_image5.png
61
57
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute FD-17 in the emission layer with a compound of Sotoyama’s formula (1), and particularly Sotoyama’s Example 3, based on the teaching of Sotoyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with excellent light-emitting efficiency, emission luminance, and color purity, as taught by Sotoyama.
Example 3 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1-1 and Formula 2.
3:
PNG
media_image6.png
657
775
media_image6.png
Greyscale
1-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
281
342
media_image7.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image8.png
266
164
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Example 3 reads on the claimed Formula 1-1 and Formula 2 wherein:
R11, R13, R16, and R18 are each a group represented by *-(L1)a1-R1, and R12, R14, R15, R17, R19, and R20 are each hydrogen (claim 4);
Each L1 is a single bond;
Each a1 is 1;
R1 is represented by Formula 2, particularly 2-10 (claim 7);
T3 and T4 are each C(R5)(R6)(R7);
c3 and c4 are each 1;
T11 is a single bond;
R3 and R4 are each hydrogen, and R5 and R7 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (-CH3) and R6 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) (claim 6); and
b3 and b4 are each 3.
Regarding claim 8, Kwak in view of Sotoyama teach the device comprising an emission layer including hosts of H-H1 and H-E2, a sensitizer of compound 4-333, and a dopant of the Example 3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Example 3 fails to read on a claimed compound. However, Sotoyama teaches in formula (2), R5 and R6 may be a substituent such as an aryl group, which is further substituted by a substituent group which includes alkyl and aryl groups (¶ [0030]-[0031]). Examples of the alkyl group include methyl, among others (¶ [0032]-[0033]).
(1):
PNG
media_image4.png
106
141
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(2):
PNG
media_image5.png
61
57
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Sotoyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute each of the highlighted phenyl groups
PNG
media_image9.png
231
159
media_image9.png
Greyscale
with methyl groups, because Sotoyama teaches R5 and R6 may suitably be an aryl group substituted by substituent groups which include methyl. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the dopant in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and possess the benefits taught by Sotoyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select methyl, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable alkyl groups which may be substituents on the compound represented by Sotoyama’s formulas (1) and (2), which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and possessing the benefits taught by Sotoyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Sotoyama’s formulas (1) and (2) having the benefits taught by Sotoyama in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified Example 3 reads on the claimed FD2 (claim 8).
Regarding claim 20, Kwak in view of Sotoyama teach the device comprising an emission layer including hosts of H-H1 and H-E2, a sensitizer of compound 4-333, and a dopant of Example 3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Sotoyama’s Example 3 emits green light and thus the emission layer of Kwak in view of Sotoyama fails to emit blue light (see Sotoyama, abstract and ¶ [0192]).
However, Kwak teaches the organic light-emitting device may be a full-color organic light-emitting device wherein the emission layer may include a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer (¶ [0358]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a red emission layer and a blue emission layer in the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama to arrive at a full-color emission layer, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kwak according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light-emitting device, as taught by Kwak. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
As the emission layer includes a blue emission layer, the emission layer emits blue light.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 2020/0006676 A1) in view of Sotoyama (US 2004/0053069 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2018/0013078 A1), supporting evidence provided by Yin (Yin, Xiaojun, et al. “Tailoring the framework of organic small molecule semiconductors towards high-performance thermoelectric composites via conglutinated carbon nanotube webs.” Journal of Materials Chemistry A 6.18 (2018): 8323-8330) and Muangpaisal (Muangpaisal, Rossatorn, et al. "Tetrasubstituted-pyrene derivatives for electroluminescent application." Organic Electronics 15.9 (2014): 2148-2157.)
Regarding claim 15, Kwak in view of Sotoyama teach the device comprising an emission layer including hosts of H-H1 and H-E2, a sensitizer of compound 4-333, and a dopant of the Example 3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kwak is silent as to the HOMO of compound 4-333. However, Kwak teaches the sensitizer may include any of compounds 1-1 to 1-88 (¶ [0335]).
Lee teaches organometallic compounds represented by Formula 1 having improved efficiency and lifespan for use in organic light-emitting devices (abstract; ¶ [0003] and [0341]). Examples thereof include compound 1-12, which has the same structure as Kwak’s compound 1-12 (see Lee, pg. 145 and Kwak, pg. 141). Compound 1-12 has a HOMO of -4.813 eV (see Lee, Table 1 on pg. 145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensitizer of compound 4-333 with a compound of Lee’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved efficiency and lifespan, as taught by Lee.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 1-12, because Kwak teaches compound 1-12 may be selected as the sensitizer, and because it would have been choosing from a list of compounds exemplified by Lee having the structure of Formula 1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the sensitizer in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising sensitizers in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Lee teach the claimed invention above but fail to teach Condition 3 is satisfied.
It is reasonable to presume that Condition 3 is inherent to Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Lee. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See MPEP 2112.
As discussed above, the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Lee uses Sotoyama’s Example 3 as a dopant. Example 3 is substantially identical to the claimed compound FD1. As evidenced by Yin, a compound having the structure of the claimed compound FD1 has a HOMO energy level value of -4.95 eV1. Muangpaisal also teaches a substantially identical compound to Sotoyama’s Example 3 in compound 3, which has a HOMO of -4.90 eV (see structure on pg. 2149 and Table 1 on pg. 2152 of Muangpaisal). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would expect Sotoyama’s Example 3 to have a similar HOMO to -4.95 eV and -4.90 eV.
Therefore, as Compound 1-12 has a HOMO of -4.813 eV (see Lee, Table 1 on pg. 145), the claimed Condition 3 is expected to be met.
Claims 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 2020/0006676 A1) in view of Sotoyama (US 2004/0053069 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2019/0119312 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kwak in view of Sotoyama teach the device comprising an emission layer including hosts of H-H1 and H-E2, a sensitizer of compound 4-333, and a dopant of the Example 3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kwak fails to teach a device wherein the hosts include a combination of compounds H-H1 and H-E1. However, Kwak teaches the electron transport host may be selected from H-E1 or H-E2, among others (¶ [0193]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Kwak, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute H-E2 with H-E1, because Kwak teaches H-E1 may suitably be selected as the electron transport host. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the electron transport host in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and possess the benefits taught by Kwak. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound H-E1, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable electron transport hosts taught by Kwak, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the electron transport host in the emission layer of the device of Kwak and possessing the benefits taught by Kwak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising electron transport hosts having the benefits taught by Kwak in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting emission layer includes compounds H-E1 and H-H1 as hosts.
Kwak in view of Sotoyama are silent as to the device comprising a sensitizer comprising a benzimidazole and carbazole group. However, Kwak teaches the sensitizer may be represented by Formula 1 or Formula 2 (¶ [0247]).
Chen teaches tetradentate platinum compounds represented by Formula I for use in OLEDs (¶ [0015]-[0016]). Chen teaches such compounds are very efficient and may provide improved device efficiency (¶ [0236]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I include compound 95050 (pg. 115).
95050:
PNG
media_image10.png
180
244
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensitizer of compound 4-333 with a compound of Chen’s Formula I, based on the teaching of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a very efficient compound and provide improved device efficiency, as taught by Chen.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 95050, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable compounds represented by Formula I and taught by Chen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen and possessing the benefits taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Chen’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Chen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 95050 reads on Kwak’s Formula 1 wherein: M11 is Pt; A11 is a C7 heterocyclic group, A12 and A13 are each a C6 carbocyclic group, and A14 is a C5 heterocyclic group; Y11 to Y13 are each C and Y14 is N; T11 to T14 are each a covalent or coordinate bond; L11 is a covalent bond, L12 is *-O-*’, and L13 is *-N(R17)-*’; a11 is 0 and a12 and a13 are each 1; L15 to L18 are not required to be present; R11 is a C1 alkyl group substituted with deuterium, R12 and R13 are each hydrogen, R14 is a C4 alkyl group, and R17 is a phenyl group that combines with A13 to form a condensed ring; b11 to b14 are each 1; and n11 and n14 are each 1, n12 is 2, and n13 is 3 (see Kwak, ¶ [0248-[0309]). Accordingly, Chen’s compound 95050 is suitable as a sensitizer of Kwak, and Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen are expected to obtain the benefits of Chen.
Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen teach the claimed invention above but fail to teach Condition 4 wherein R(H0D)H/R(HOD)0 ≤ 1.07. It is reasonable to presume that Condition 4 is inherent to Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which would result in the claimed property.
For example, the instant Example 1-1 is formed using: an ITO anode; a hole injection layer of F6-TCNNQ; a hole transport layer of HT1; an emission layer of hosts H-H1 and H-E1, sensitizer SP001, and dopant FD1; an electron transport layer of ET17 and LiQ; an electron injection layer of LiQ; and a cathode of Al (instant ¶ [0264]-[0267]).
Similarly, the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen is formed using: an ITO anode; a hole injection layer of F6-TCNNQ; a hole injection layer of HT3; an emission layer of hosts H-H1 and H-E1, sensitizer of Chen’s compound 95050, and dopant of Sotoyama’s Example 3; an electron transport layer of ET17 and LiQ; and electron injection layer of LiQ; and a cathode of Al (see Kwak, ¶ [0429]-[0432]).
Kwak’s hosts H-H1 and H-E1 are identical to the instant compounds H-H1 and H-E1 (see Kwak, pgs. 20 and 94 and instant pgs. 51 and 161), Sotoyama’s Example 3 is substantially similar in structure to the claimed FD1, and Chen’s compound 95050 is nearly identical to the instant sensitizer SP001 (see structure of SP001 on instant pg. 381, and structure of compound 95050 on pg. 115 of Chen). Thus, the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen is substantially identical to the device of instant Example 1-1.
As shown in Fig. 16, the device of Example 1-1 obtains a relative HOD value—R(HOD)H/ R(HOD)0—of just below 1. Thus the device of instant Example 1-1 satisfies the claimed Condition 4. Accordingly, as the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen is substantially identical to the device of instant Example 1-1, the device composition of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen including the claimed composition is expected to satisfy the claimed Condition 4.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 23, Kwak in view of Sotoyama teach the device comprising an emission layer including hosts of H-H1 and H-E2, a sensitizer of compound 4-333, and a dopant of Example 3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kwak fails to teach a device wherein a host comprises at least one cyano group. However, Kwak teaches the electron transport host may be selected from H-E2 or H-E(1), among others (¶ [0193]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Kwak, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute H-E2 with H-E(1), because Kwak teaches H-E(1) may suitably be selected as the electron transport host. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the electron transport host in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and possess the benefits taught by Kwak. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound H-E(1), because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable electron transport hosts taught by Kwak, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the electron transport host in the emission layer of the device of Kwak and possessing the benefits taught by Kwak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising electron transport hosts having the benefits taught by Kwak in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As shown on pg. 31 of Kwak, compound H-E(1) comprises one cyano group.
Kwak in view of Sotoyama are silent as to the device comprising a sensitizer comprising a benzimidazole and carbazole group. However, Kwak teaches the sensitizer may be represented by Formula 1 or Formula 2 (¶ [0247]).
Chen teaches tetradentate platinum compounds represented by Formula I for use in OLEDs (¶ [0015]-[0016]). Chen teaches such compounds are very efficient and may provide improved device efficiency (¶ [0236]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I include compound 95050 (pg. 115).
95050:
PNG
media_image10.png
180
244
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensitizer of compound 4-333 with a compound of Chen’s Formula I, based on the teaching of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a very efficient compound and provide improved device efficiency, as taught by Chen.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 95050, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable compounds represented by Formula I and taught by Chen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the emission layer of the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen and possessing the benefits taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Chen’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Chen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 95050 reads on Kwak’s Formula 1 wherein: M11 is Pt; A11 is a C7 heterocyclic group, A12 and A13 are each a C6 carbocyclic group, and A14 is a C5 heterocyclic group; Y11 to Y13 are each C and Y14 is N; T11 to T14 are each a covalent or coordinate bond; L11 is a covalent bond, L12 is *-O-*’, and L13 is *-N(R17)-*’; a11 is 0 and a12 and a13 are each 1; L15 to L18 are not required to be present; R11 is a C1 alkyl group substituted with deuterium, R12 and R13 are each hydrogen, R14 is a C4 alkyl group, and R17 is a phenyl group that combines with A13 to form a condensed ring; b11 to b14 are each 1; and n11 and n14 are each 1, n12 is 2, and n13 is 3 (see Kwak, ¶ [0248-[0309]). Accordingly, Chen’s compound 95050 is suitable as a sensitizer of Kwak, and Kwak in view of Sotoyama and Chen are expected to obtain the benefits of Chen.
Compound 905050 reads on the claimed Formula 101 wherein: M11 is a third-row transition metal; L11 is represented by Formula 101-3; L12 is not required to be present; n11 is 1; n12 is 0; A101 is a substituted C7 heterocyclic group (benzimidazole), A102 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, A103 is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole), and A104 is a substituted C5 heterocyclic group; Y101 to Y104 are each a chemical bond; T101 and T103 are each a single bond, and T103 is O.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 2020/0006676 A1 in view of Sotoyama (US 2004/0053069 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang (US 2016/0104844 A1).
Regarding claims 21-22, Kwak in view of Sotoyama teach the device comprising an emission layer including hosts of H-H1 and H-E2, a sensitizer of compound 4-333, and a dopant of Example 3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kwak fails to teach the device further comprises a multiple light emitting units and a charge generation layer. However, Kwak does teach the device may include a plurality of light-emitting units in which charge generation layers are disposed between two neighboring light-emitting units, wherein the charge generation layers may include an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type generation layer (¶ [0045]). Additionally, Kwak teaches a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted from one light-emitting unit is different from a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted by another light-emitting unit (¶ [0047]).
Kang teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising a first light emitting part including a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting part including a second light emitting layer on the first light emitting part, and a first charge generation layer between the first and second light emitting parts, wherein the first charge generation layer comprises at least two hosts and at least one of the at least two hosts includes a pyrene compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (abstract; ¶ [0011]). In particular, the charge generation layer includes an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer (¶ [0039]). As shown in the Exemplary Embodiments 1 and 2, the first and second emitting parts emit different colored light and thus have different maximum emission wavelength of light (¶ [0073]-[0081]). Such a device obtains high emission efficiency and low driving voltage (¶ [0010] and [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the device of Kwak in view of Sotoyama a first light emitting part a second light emitting part, and a charge generation layer between the two light emitting parts; wherein the emission layer of Kwak in view of Sotoyama is provided as an emission layer in the first light emitting part; the second light emitting part emits a different colored light than the first emission part; the charge generation layer comprises at least two hosts and at least one of the at least two hosts includes a pyrene compound represented by Chemical Formula 1; and the charge generation layer comprises an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer, based on the teaching of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high emission efficiency and low driving voltage, as taught by Kang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Compound 3 of Muangpaisal, Rossatorn, et al. "Tetrasubstituted-pyrene derivatives for electroluminescent application." Organic Electronics 15.9 (2014): 2148-2157. reads on the limitations of Formula 1-1 and Formula 2. See pg. 2149.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
1 Yin, Xiaojun, et al. "Tailoring the framework of organic small molecule semiconductors towards high-performance thermoelectric composites via conglutinated carbon nanotube webs." Journal of Materials Chemistry A 6.18 (2018): 8323-8330. See structure of TCzPy in Scheme 1 on pg. 8324, and value of HOMO in 2.3 Electrochemical properties on pg. 8325.
Prosecution Insights