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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (an emissive region of an OLED, wherein the emissive region comprises a first compound and a second compound, wherein the first compound transfer energy to the second compound, and the second compound emits light), and Species A1 (first compound does not comprise a deuterium atom) in the reply filed on 04/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 77 and 83 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-74, 87, 91 and 93 have been canceled.
Claim 96-97 have been added.
Claims 75-86, 88-90, 92, and 94-97 are pending.
Claims 77 and 83 have been withdrawn.
Claims 75, 76, 88-90, and 94-95 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 87 and 93 obviates the rejections of claims 87 and 93 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 75, 76, 80, 85, 88-90, and 94 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 75-76, 78-81, 84-86, 88, 90, 92, and 95 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1, hereafter Nam) in view of Herron et al. (US 2016/0013413 A1, hereafter Herron),
the rejection of claim 94 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1) in view of Herron et al. (US 2016/0013413 A1) as applied to claims 75-76, 78-81, 84-88, 90, 92-93, and 95 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang), and
the rejections of claims 75-76, 78-82, 84-86, 88-90, 92, and 94 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1) in view of Uoyama et al. (“Highly efficient organic light-emitting diodes from delayed fluorescence” Nature 2012, vol. 492, page 234-240) and Pan et al. (US 2018/0010040 A1, hereafter Pan) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 12-15 of the reply filed 02/06/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 75-76, 78-81, 84-86, 88, 90, 92, and 95 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam/Herron and the rejection of claim 94 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam/Herron/Pang set forth in the Office Action of 10/10/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over combination of Nam and Herron.
The cited rejections refer to the Compound E1 of Herron as the second compound (see section 21 of the last Office Action). The amended claims require the second compound to have exactly one boryl group. The Compound E1 of Herron does not have any boryl group; thus, the compound does not read on the limitation of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Nam is still applicable to reject the amended claims. Two sets of new grounds of rejection are applied: Nam in view of Li and Nam in view of Hatakeyama.
First, Nam discloses an organic light emitting device (Example 1 in [0340]-[0343] and Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD11).
The fluorescent emitter FD11 does not have exactly one boryl group; however, Nam does teach that the fluorescent emitter can be a boryl containing compound represented by Formula 502-2 ([0153]-[0161]) and exemplifies Compound FD(15) ([0162]).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Nam by substituting the fluorescent emitter with Compound FD(15) of Nam, as taught by Nam.
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Nam comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD(15)).
The Compound FD(15) of Nam does not comprises any deuterium atom; however, Nam does teach that the substituents of the condensed cyclic ring at the positions corresponding to R501 and R502 of Formula 502-2 can be deuterium or deuterated aryl ([0153]-[0161]).
Li teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium in an organic compound used for an organic light emitting device provides higher fluorescence quantum yield ([0008]), better thermal stability, and longer lifetime ([0009]-[0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound FD(15) of Nam by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R501 and R502 of Formula 502-2 of Nam with deuterium, as taught by Nam and Li.
The modification provides Compound of Nam as modified by Li which has identical structure as the Compound FD(15) of Nam except that all the hydrogen atoms substituted to the condensed rings and the terminal mesityl groups are replaced by deuterium.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H1 of Nam as a host, H2 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound Nam as modified by Li as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H1, S-1, and Compound of Nam as modified by Li are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound.
New grounds of rejection are applied using Nam in view of Li.
Secondly, Nam discloses an organic light emitting device (Example 1 in [0340]-[0343] and Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD11).
The fluorescent emitter FD11 does not have exactly one boryl group; however, Nam does teach that the fluorescent emitter can be any compound that can emit fluorescent light ([0131]) and exemplifies a boron-containing polycyclic compound (FD14 in [0162]).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Nam by substituting the fluorescent emitter with Compound FD14 of Nam, as taught by Nam.
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Nam comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD14).
The Compound FD14 of Nam does not comprises any deuterium atom.
Hatakeyama discloses a boron-containing polycyclic compound (Formula 1 in [0011]-[0017]) used as the light emitting material of an organic light emitting device ([0068]).
Hatakeyama teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides improved luminous efficiency, improved element lifetime by a reaction kinetic isotope effect ([0081]).
Hatakeyama teaches substitution of the hydrogen atoms substituted to the aromatic rings of the polycyclic ring compound with deuterium (see examples in [0125] including at least Compound 1-4).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Nam by substituting the Compound FD14 of Nam with the Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama, as taught by Nam and Hatakeyama.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H1 of Nam as a host, H2 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H1, S-1, and Compound of 1-4 of Hatakeyama are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound.
New grounds of rejection are applied using Nam in view of Hatakeyama.
Applicant argues that there is unexpected results (i.e. 40% longer lifetime) in the instant invention (page 13-15).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
It is unclear if the results are unexpected for at least following reasons.
First, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
With respect to the commensurate in scope with claimed invention, the Examiner points out MPEP 716.02(d), as recited below.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
The superior property (i.e. long lifetime of the inventive device) is only shown when the test was conducted using a device wherein the emission layer materials are directed to a single particular combination of materials (i.e. Compound 3 as the first host, Compound 4 as the second host, Phosphor 1 as a sensitizer, and DABNA-D21 as the fluorescent emitter). However, the instant claims do not require the particular combination of materials. For example, none of the instant claims does not restrict the Compound 3 to be used as the first host, Compound 4 to be used as the second host, Phosphor 1 to be used as a sensitizer, and DABNA-D21 to be used as the fluorescent emitter. In particular, there is no structural limitation at all for the host materials in the claims. It is unclear whether the superior property only exists when the particular combination of materials are used, while the combination of materials are not claimed. Thus, the data is not commensurate in scope with claimed invention.
Second, the comparison was not made to the closest prior art.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
Both comparative devices (i.e. Comparison 1 and 2 in the specification) use Compounds 3 and 4 as the first and second host materials of the emission layer. However, in the disclosure of Nam, there is no specific embodiment wherein the host materials are same as Applicant’s Compounds 3 and 4. For example, the closest prior art in Nam is the organic light emitting device (Example 1 in [0340]-[0343] and Table 1) which has a structure comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD11). It is known in the art that use of compounds H1 and H2 as the co-host materials provides advantages such as low voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long life ([0008]-[0012], D1 and A3 in [0187]) as taught by Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1, hereafter Ihn). The reason why the comparative device provides shorter lifetime than the inventive device could be because the comparative device did not use advantageous co-hosts H1 and H2 of Nam which is the host materials of the closest prior art (Example 1 in in [0340]-[0343] and Table 1).
Third, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage (i.e. long lifetime) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art (i.e. high fluorescence quantum yield, better thermal stability, longer lifetime, improved luminous efficiency, and improved element lifetime by a reaction kinetic isotope effect) cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
There are two sets of grounds of rejections. For the first set of rejection over Nam in view of Li, Li teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium in an organic compound used for an organic light emitting device provides higher fluorescence quantum yield ([0008]), better thermal stability, and longer lifetime ([0009]-[0010]). For the second set of rejection over Nam in view of Hatakeyama, Hatakeyama teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides improved luminous efficiency, improved element lifetime by a reaction kinetic isotope effect ([0081]).
For at least this reason, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 15-16 of the reply filed 02/06/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 75-76, 78-82, 84-86, 88-90, 92, and 94 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam/Uoyama/Pan set forth in the Office Action of 10/10/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over combination of Nam, Uoyama, and Pan.
The cited rejections refer to the Compound DEU1 of Pan as the second compound; however, the amended claims require the second compound to have exactly one boryl group. The Compound DEU1 of Pan does not have any boryl group; thus, the compound does not read on the limitation of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 75-76, 78-81, 84-86, 88-90, and 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1, hereafter Nam) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereafter Li).
Regarding claims 75-76, 78-81, 84-86, 88-90, and 97, Nam discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an emissive layer including a host, a fluorescent emitters, and a sensitizer ([0005]). Nam teaches the host can be one kind of compound or a mixture of two kinds of compounds ([0056]).
PNG
media_image3.png
331
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nam exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 1 in [0340]-[0343] and Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD11).
The fluorescent emitter FD11 does not have exactly one boryl group; however, Nam does teach that the fluorescent emitter can be a boryl containing compound represented by Formula 502-2 ([0153]-[0161]) and exemplifies Compound FD(15) ([0162]).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 organic light emitting device of Nam by substituting the fluorescent emitter with Compound FD(15) of Nam, as taught by Nam.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified fluorescent emitters of Nam in the device of Nam would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Nam comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD(15)).
The Compound FD(15) of Nam does not comprises any deuterium atom; however, Nam does teach that the substituents of the condensed cyclic ring at the positions corresponding to R501 and R502 of Formula 502-2 can be deuterium or deuterated aryl ([0153]-[0161]).
Li teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium in an organic compound used for an organic light emitting device provides higher fluorescence quantum yield ([0008]), better thermal stability, and longer lifetime ([0009]-[0010]).
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 FD(15) of Nam by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R501 and R502 of Formula 502-2 of Nam with deuterium, as taught by Nam and Li.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide higher fluorescence quantum yield, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime, based on the teaching of Li.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R501 and R502 of Formula 2-2 of Nam with deuterium would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Nam as modified by Li which has identical structure as the Compound FD(15) of Nam except that all the hydrogen atoms substituted to the condensed rings and the terminal mesityl groups are replaced by deuterium.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H1 of Nam as a host, H2 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound Nam as modified by Li as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H1, S-1, and Compound of Nam as modified by Li are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound, meeting all the limitations of claims 75-76, 78-79, 84-86, 88-90, and 97.
The Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including 1) the emission component from the S1 energy of the second compound when a voltage is applied across the OLED and wherein at least 65% of the emission from the OLED is produced from the second compound with a luminance of at least 10 cd/m2 (claim 80) and 2) T1 energy of the first compound is higher than that of the second compound, or wherein S1 energy of the second compound is lower than that of the first compound (claim 81)
It is reasonable to presume that Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li inherently possess the claimed properties 1) to 2) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states 1) in some embodiments, at least 65% of the emission from the OLED is produced from the second compound with a luminance of at least 10 cd/m2 ([0063]), and 2) in some embodiments, T1 energy of the first compound is higher than that of the second compound, and in some embodiments, S1 energy of the second compound is lower than that of the first compound ([0064]).
In the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li, the first compound has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment, M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z, wherein M is Pt ([0070]-[0071]) and has identical metal center (i.e. Pt) and ligand backbone structures as Applicant’s specific embodiment (see Sensitizer 1 in [0164]); the second compound comprises the identical core structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment ([0077], the 11th structural formula on page 16),
PNG
media_image4.png
119
167
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Therefore, Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li possess the claimed properties 1) to 2) above, meeting all the limitations of claims 80-81.
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 Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li 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.
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claims 75-76, 78-81, 84-86, 88-90, 93, and 97 above, further in view of Oh et al. (US 2016/0126472 A1, hereafter Oh).
Regarding claim 92, the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li reads on all the features of claim 75 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H1 of Nam as a host, H2 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound of Nam as modified by Li as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H1, S-1, and Compound of Nam as modified by Li are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound.
The hole transport host (H1) and the electron transport host (H2) are not same as the specific host examples of the instant claim (see examples in [0086] of the instant specification); however, Nam does teach Compound H-H1 ([0126]) as the hole transport host and Compound H-E43 as the electron transport host ([0124]). The Compounds H-H1 and H-E43 of Nam each has identical structure as the specific host example of the instant specification (the 5th compound on page 21 and the 11th compound on page 21).
PNG
media_image5.png
406
536
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Oh teaches a composition comprising a first host of Formula 1 and a second host of Formula 2 and used as the host materials of an organic light emitting device ([0011]-[0023]).
The Compound H-H1 of Nam is directed to the compound of Formula 2 of Oh, and the Compound H-E42 of Nam is directed to the compound of Formula 1 of Oh ([0011], [0018], [0072], [0096]).
Oh teaches the composition provides high efficiency and long lifetime ([0008]).
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 Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li by substituting the hole transport host with Compound H-H1 and the electron transport host with Compound H-E43, as taught by Nam.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of the hole and electron transport hosts would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li (2) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer(H-H1 of Nam as a host, H-E43 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound of Nam as modified by Li as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H-H1, S-1, and Compound of Nam as modified by Li are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound.
The Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li (2) reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties: the first host has the highest S1 and T1 energies among all materials in the emissive region (claim 92).
It is reasonable to presume that Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li inherently possess the claimed property above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states in some embodiments, the first host has the highest S1 and T1 energies among all materials in the emissive region ([0079]).
In the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li (2), the first compound has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment, M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z, wherein M is Pt ([0070]-[0071]) and has identical metal center (i.e. Pt) and ligand backbone structures as Applicant’s specific embodiment (see Sensitizer 1 in [0164]); the second compound comprises the identical core structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment ([0077], the 11th structural formula on page 16),
PNG
media_image4.png
119
167
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.; and the first host has identical structure as Applicant’ specific embodiment ([0086], the 5th compound on page 21).
With respect to the limitation “second host has the highest S1 and T1 energies than those of the first” of claim 92, both the first host and the second host are identical to the specific embodiments of the instant specification. Any one of them having lower S1 and T1 energies than the other, can read on the limitation of the first host.
Therefore, Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li (2) possess the claimed property.
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 Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li (2) 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.
Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claims 75-76, 78-81, 84-86, 88-90, 93, and 97 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 94, the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li reads on all the features of claim 75 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H1 of Nam as a host, H2 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound of Nam as modified by Li as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H1, S-1, and Compound of Nam as modified by Li are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound.
Nam in view of Li does not disclose a specific flexible display device comprising Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic optoelectronic device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the display device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li by incorporating it into a flexible display device, as taught by Nam, Li, and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. flexible display) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Li.
Claims 75-76, 78-82, 84-86, 88, 90, and 95-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1, hereafter Nam) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0181350 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claims 75-76, 78-82, 84-86, 88, 90, and 95-97, Nam discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an emissive layer including a host, a fluorescent emitters, and a sensitizer ([0005]). Nam teaches the host can be one kind of compound or a mixture of two kinds of compounds ([0056]).
PNG
media_image3.png
331
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nam exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 1 in [0340]-[0343] and Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD11).
The fluorescent emitter FD11 does not have exactly one boryl group; however, Nam does teach that the fluorescent emitter can be any compound that can emit fluorescent light ([0131]) and exemplifies a boron-containing polycyclic compound (FD14 in [0162]).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 organic light emitting device of Nam by substituting the fluorescent emitter with Compound FD14 of Nam, as taught by Nam.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified fluorescent emitters of Nam in the device of Nam would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Nam comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer, and a cathode (Al), wherein the emissive layer comprising hosts (H1 and H2), and a sensitizer (S-1, 8.95 wt%), and a fluorescent emitter (FD14).
The Compound FD14 of Nam does not comprises any deuterium atom.
Hatakeyama discloses a boron-containing polycyclic compound (Formula 1 in [0011]-[0017]) used as the light emitting material of an organic light emitting device ([0068]).
Hatakeyama teaches that substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides improved luminous efficiency, improved element lifetime by a reaction kinetic isotope effect ([0081]).
Hatakeyama teaches substitution of the hydrogen atoms substituted to the aromatic rings of the polycyclic ring compound with deuterium (see examples in [0125] including at least Compound 1-4).
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 Modified organic light emitting device of Nam by substituting the hydrogen atoms bonded to the aromatic rings of the Compound FD14 of Nam with deuterium (i.e. substitution of the Compound FD14 of Nam with the Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama), as taught by Nam and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide improved luminous efficiency and improved element lifetime by a reaction kinetic isotope effect, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H1 of Nam as a host, H2 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H1, S-1, and Compound of 1-4 of Hatakeyama are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound, meeting all the limitations of claims 75-76, 78-79, 84-86, 88, 90, and 95-97.
The Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including 1) the emission component from the S1 energy of the second compound when a voltage is applied across the OLED and wherein at least 65% of the emission from the OLED is produced from the second compound with a luminance of at least 10 cd/m2 (claim 80), 2) T1 energy of the first compound is higher than that of the second compound, or wherein S1 energy of the second compound is lower than that of the first compound (claim 81); and 3) the second compound is capable of functioning as a TADF emitter and the S1-T1 energy gap of the second compound is less than 300 meV, 250 meV, 200 meV, 150 meV, or 100 meV (claim 82).
It is reasonable to presume that Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama inherently possess the claimed properties 1) to 3) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states 1) in some embodiments, at least 65% of the emission from the OLED is produced from the second compound with a luminance of at least 10 cd/m2 ([0063]); 2) in some embodiments, T1 energy of the first compound is higher than that of the second compound, and in some embodiments, S1 energy of the second compound is lower than that of the first compound ([0064]); and 3) the second compound is capable of functioning as a TADF emitter and the S1-T1 energy gap of the second compound is less than 300 meV, 250 meV, 200 meV, 150 meV, or 100 meV ([0065]).
In the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama, the first compound has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment, M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z, wherein M is Pt ([0070]-[0071]) and has identical metal center (i.e. Pt) and ligand backbone structures as Applicant’s specific embodiment (see Sensitizer 1 in [0164]); the second compound has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment (DABNA-D21 in [0164]). The second compound has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment (DABNA-D21 in [0165]).
Therefore, Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama possess the claimed properties 1) to 3) above, meeting all the limitations of claims 80-82.
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 Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama 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.
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0181350 A1) as applied to claims 75-76, 78-82, 84-86, 88, 90, and 95-97 above, further in view of Oh et al. (US 2016/0126472 A1).
Regarding claim 92, the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 75 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H1 of Nam as a host, H2 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H1, S-1, and Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound.
The hole transport host (H1) and the electron transport host (H2) are not same as the specific host examples of the instant claim (see examples in [0086] of the instant specification); however, Nam does teach Compound H-H1 ([0126]) as the hole transport host and Compound H-E43 as the electron transport host ([0124]). The Compounds H-H1 and H-E43 of Nam each has identical structure as the specific host example of the instant specification (the 5th compound on page 21 and the 11th compound on page 21).
PNG
media_image5.png
406
536
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Oh teaches a composition comprising a first host of Formula 1 and a second host of Formula 2 and used as the host materials of an organic light emitting device ([0011]-[0023]).
The Compound H-H1 of Nam is directed to the compound of Formula 2 of Oh, and the Compound H-E42 of Nam is directed to the compound of Formula 1 of Oh ([0011], [0018], [0072], [0096]).
Oh teaches the composition provides high efficiency and long lifetime ([0008]).
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 Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama by substituting the hole transport host with Compound H-H1 and the electron transport host with Compound H-E43, as taught by Nam.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency and long lifetime.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of the hole and electron transport hosts would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama and Oh comprising an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H-H1 of Nam as a host, H-E43 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H-H1, S-1, and Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound.
The Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama and Oh reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties: the first host has the highest S1 and T1 energies among all materials in the emissive region (claim 92).
It is reasonable to presume that Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama inherently possess the claimed property above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states in some embodiments, the first host has the highest S1 and T1 energies among all materials in the emissive region ([0079]).
In the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama and Oh, the first compound has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment, M(L1)x(L2)y(L3)z, wherein M is Pt ([0070]-[0071]) and has identical metal center (i.e. Pt) and ligand backbone structures as Applicant’s specific embodiment (see Sensitizer 1 in [0164]); the second compound has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment (DABNA-D21 in [0164]); and the first host has identical structure as Applicant’ specific embodiment ([0086], the 5th compound on page 21).
With respect to the limitation “second host has the highest S1 and T1 energies than those of the first” of claim 92, both the first host and the second host are identical to the specific embodiments of the instant specification. Any one of them having lower S1 and T1 energies than the other, can read on the limitation of the first host.
Therefore, Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama and Oh possess the claimed property.
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 Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama and Oh 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.
Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2021/0284906 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0181350 A1) as applied to claims 75-76, 78-82, 84-86, 88, 90, and 95-97 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012).
Regarding claim 94, the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 75 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), an emissive layer (H1 of Nam as a host, H2 of Nam as a host, S-1 of Nam as a sensitizer 8.95 wt%, and Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent emitter), and a cathode (Al), wherein the compounds H1, S-1, and Compound 1-4 of Hatakeyama are each a first host, a first compound, and a second compound.
Nam in view of Hatakeyama does not disclose a specific flexible display device comprising Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic optoelectronic device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the display device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
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 Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama by incorporating it into a flexible display device, as taught by Nam, Hatakeyama, and Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light emitting devices in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product (i.e. flexible display) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Nam as modified by Hatakeyama.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights