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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of species A2 which is
PNG
media_image1.png
131
142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
connecting structure B1, which is one of Chemical Formulae 2-5 in claim 5 in the reply filed on 12/06/2024 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
In the Office Action of 12/30/2024, the Examiner withdraws the requirement of election among (B1) and (B2) only.
In the amendment of 06/26/2026, Applicant deleted all the limitations directed to the species (A1). The requirement of species elections are completely withdrawn, because all the pending claims are directed to a single species (A2).
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2-4, 7, 11, 15-16, and 21 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The cancelation of claims 3-4, 7, and 11 obviates the rejections of claims 3-4, 7, and 11 set forth in the last Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 23-28 of the reply filed 06/26/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0165279 A1, hereafter Fujita) in view of Wakamiya et al. (US 2014/0058099 A1, hereafter Wakamiya) as evidenced by Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781) set forth in the Office Action of 03/27/2026 and the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed on 06/26/2026 (hereafter the Declaration) have been considered.
Applicant argues that Fujita teaches multimer of formula (3’-4) through (3’-6) and Compound 3-23, and none of the multimers contain
PNG
media_image2.png
111
121
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the linker to connect the monomer as claimed; thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use
PNG
media_image2.png
111
121
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a linker to connect the monomer to form a multimer as claimed (page 25).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
In the instant Office Action, the previous rejections have been updated to add an additional teaching reference by Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2019/074093 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘093). See the details in the 103 rejection section below.
First of all, the rejections are made by Fujita in combination of Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093, not Fujita alone. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Secondly, in response to Applicant’s arguments based on the 7 examples of Fujita including formula (3’-4) through (3’-6) and Compound 3-23, the Examiner points to MPEP 2123 (I) and (II).
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.")
Furthermore, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Fujita discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer having two layer structure and containing an anthracene compound of Formula (1) as a host, a dibenzochrysene compound of Formula (2) as a host, and a boron-containing compound as a dopant ([0011], [0083], [0089]). Fujita teaches the boron-containing compound can be a multimer of the polycyclic compound of Formula (3’) ([0220]). Fujita exemplifies a monomer Compound (3-139) (Example 1 in [0583] and Table 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
320
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound (3-139) is not a multimer comprising a plurality of the Compound (3-139) unit structures; however, Fujita does teach a trimer comprising unit structures each represented by Formula (3) of Fujita and connected by a linking group of phenylene ([0220]) (emphasis added).
PNG
media_image4.png
358
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wakamiya discloses a compound having multiple polycyclic ring moieties connected by a central linking group Ar1 (see Formula 1 in [0008]). Wakamiya teaches the structure of a trimer comprising three polycyclic ring moieties and a central phenylene group, represented by Formula (7) ([0085]-[0087]), wherein Y1, Y2, and Y3 can be boron; X1, X4, X7 can be nitrogen; L1 and L2, L5 and L6, and L9 and L10 of Formula (7) can be bonded to form a linking group of nitrogen; and L3 and L4, L7 and L8, and L11 and L12 can be hydrogen ([0086]-[0087]). That is, Wakamiya teaches that each terminal polycyclic ring moiety of the trimer of Formula (7) can be the Compound (3-139) of Fujita.
PNG
media_image5.png
262
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, a dimer comprising a central phenylene group connected by two terminal B-containing polycyclic moieties is known in the art as taught by Hatakeyama ‘093 (Compounds (1-182) in [0069]). Thus, an ordinary skill the art would have constructed a trimer comprising a central phenylene group connected by three B-containing polycyclic moieties of Compound (3-139) of Fujita using the known dimer structure of Hatakeyama ‘093 and the trimer structure of Formula (7) of Wakamiya.
Wakamiya teaches that a compound having multiple cyclic structures provides high glass transition temperature, high thermal stability, high charge transport efficiency, amorphous stability, and low crystallization ([0006]-[0008]) such that the organic light emitting device comprising the compound provides high efficiency, low power consumption, and long life ([0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound (3-139) of Fujita by incorporating it into the trimer structure of Formula (7) of Wakamiya, as taught by Fujita, Wakamiya, and Hatakeyama ‘093 to achieve the benefits taught by Wakamiya.
PNG
media_image6.png
329
509
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. New grounds of rejections are made using Fujita in view of Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093.
For at least the reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wakamiya does not provide a single compound having its X1, X4 or X7 to be N and Y1, Y2, and Y3 to be B (Wakamiya, Table 9) and the closest species disclosed in Wakamiya in Table 9 for General Formula (7) are compounds 1129 and 1131 (page 27).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
As outlined above, the rejections are made by Fujita in combination of Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093, not Wakamiya alone. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Additionally, the teaching of Wakamiya is not directed to a couple of specific examples of Wakamiya. As outlined above, MPEP recites “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”, “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain”, “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”, and “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” See MPEP 2123 (I) and (II)
Fujita teaches the specific structure of a boron-containing compound (3-139) (Example 1 in [0583] and Table 1). Furthermore, Fujita teaches that a trimer can be formed by connecting the monomers, each represented by Formula (3) of Fujita using a linking group of phenylene ([0220]).
The only knowledge that an ordinary skill in the art would rely upon from Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 is: 1) the way to build a trimer structure using the given information about the structure of a monomer and a phenylene linker and 2) the benefits of the trimer as compared to a monomer.
As outlined above, Wakamiya teaches the general structure of a trimer represented by Formula (7), wherein the monomer structure of Compound (3-139) of Fujita is encompassed by the limitation of the terminal polycyclic ring structures of
PNG
media_image7.png
199
167
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
183
213
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image9.png
191
186
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. An ordinary skill in the art would be able to build a trimer by incorporating the monomer structure of Compound (3-139) of Fujita into the three positions of the terminal polycyclic ring structures of the General Formula (7) of Wakamiya.
This modification is even more obvious over Hatakeyama ‘093 because a dimer structure is already known in the art at the time when the Application was effectively filed. Hatakeyama ’093 teaches a dimer comprising two monomer structures of B-containing polycycles and a phenylene linker (Compounds (1-182) in [0069]). An ordinary skill in the art would have been able to expand the knowledge of a dimer to build a trimer based on the teaching of Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093.
PNG
media_image5.png
262
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wakamiya finally teaches the benefits of forming a trimer, which is to provide high glass transition temperature, high thermal stability, high charge transport efficiency, amorphous stability, and low crystallization ([0006]-[0008]) such that the organic light emitting device comprising the compound provides high efficiency, low power consumption, and long life ([0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound (3-139) of Fujita by incorporating it into the trimer structure of Formula (7) of Wakamiya to achieve the benefits taught by Wakamiya.
At least for this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that organic light emitting devices of Comparative Examples 4, 6, and 7 prepared by Compounds D, F, and G, wherein Compound F corresponds to the Compound 3-139 of Fujita provides much less EQE and lifetime compared to Examples 7-12 (page 12 of the Remarks and the Declaration).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
It is unclear whether the data supports the unexpected results for at least following reasons.
First, the data is not compared 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).
The closest prior art of the cited obviousness rejection is the organic light emitting device of Fujita. Fujita discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer (dibenzochrysene Compound 2-419 as a host and Compound 3-139 as a dopant with a ratio of 98:2), a second light emitting layer (anthracene Compound 1-134-O as a host and Compound 3-139 as a dopant with a ratio of 98:2), and a second electrode (Example 1 in [0583] and Table 1). The instant rejections also refer to this closest prior art.
The organic light emitting device of Fujita requires two light emitting layers comprising an anthracene compound of Formula (1), a dibenzochrysene compound of Formula (2), and a boron-containing polycyclic compound of Formula (3) of Fujita. None of the comparative devices has two light emitting layers comprising a dibenzochrysene compound. Thus, the comparison was not made to the closest prior art.
Second, in response to applicant's argument as described above, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage (i.e. low driving voltage, high EQE, and long lifetime) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art (i.e. high glass transition temperature, high thermal stability, high charge transport efficiency, amorphous stability, and low crystallization of the resultant compounds ([0006]-[0008] by Wakamiya)) 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).
Furthermore, the high EQE, and long lifetime are not unexpected results. Wakamiya teaches that the organic light emitting device comprising the compound of Wakamiya provides high efficiency, low power consumption, and long life ([0010]), and the resultant Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 is one of the compounds of Wakamiya because it is encompassed by the General Formula (1) of Wakamiya ([0022]).
For at least this reason, the rejections are not found persuasive.
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 1, 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0165279 A1, hereafter Fujita) in view of Wakamiya et al. (US 2014/0058099 A1, hereafter Wakamiya) and Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2019/074093 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘093), as evidenced by Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘2016).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8-10, and 17-20, Fujita discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer having two layer structure and containing an anthracene compound of Formula (1) as a host, a dibenzochrysene compound of Formula (2) as a host, and a boron-containing compound as a dopant ([0011], [0083], [0089]).
Fujita exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer (dibenzochrysene Compound 2-419 as a host and Compound 3-139 as a dopant with a ratio of 98:2), a second light emitting layer (anthracene Compound 1-134-O as a host and Compound 3-139 as a dopant with a ratio of 98:2), and a second electrode (Example 1 in [0583] and Table 1).
PNG
media_image10.png
332
712
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In the organic light emitting device, the anthracene compound comprises a dibenzofuran group which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Fujita does teach anthracene compounds not comprising a dibenzofuran group and exemplifies Compound (1-101) ([0156]). The Compound (1-101) of Fujita has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula A.
Fujita further teaches that the layer of the organic light emitting device can be formed by a spin coating method or a coating method ([0446]). It is known in the art that a coating method requires solid phase compounds (i.e. host and dopant) and a solvent to dissolve the solid compounds. The solution including the solvent and the host and dopant compounds is equated with the claimed coating composition.
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 Fujita by substituting the anthracene host compound (1-134-O) with another anthracene compound (1-101), wherein the light emitting layer is formed by a solution-based coating method, as taught by Fujita.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the device using more cost effective solution-based coating method.
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 exemplified anthracene compounds of Fujita in the device of Fujita 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 Fujita comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer comprising dibenzochrysene Compound 2-419, a second light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the second light emitting layer is formed by a coating composition containing Compound (1-101) as a host (98 wt%), Compound (3-139) as a dopant (2 wt%), and a solvent.
The Compound (3-139) is not a multimer comprising a plurality of the Compound (3-139) unit structures; however, Fujita does teach the light emitting layer comprises a trimer comprising unit structures each represented by Formula (3) of Fujita and connected by a linking group of phenylene ([0220]).
PNG
media_image4.png
358
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wakamiya discloses a compound having multiple polycyclic ring moieties connected by a central linking group Ar1 (see Formula 1 in [0008]). Wakamiya teaches the structure of a trimer comprising three polycyclic ring moieties and a central phenylene group, represented by Formula (7) ([0085]-[0087]), wherein Y1, Y2, and Y3 can be boron; X1, X4, X7 can be nitrogen; L1 and L2, L5 and L6, and L9 and L10 of Formula (7) can be bonded to form a linking group of nitrogen; and L3 and L4, L7 and L8, and L11 and L12 can be hydrogen ([0086]-[0087]). That is, Wakamiya teaches that the terminal polycyclic ring moieties including
PNG
media_image7.png
199
167
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
183
213
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image9.png
191
186
media_image9.png
Greyscale
of the trimer of Formula (7) can have the same structure as the Compound (3-139) of Fujita.
PNG
media_image5.png
262
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, a dimer comprising a central phenylene group connected by two terminal B-containing polycyclic moieties is known in the art as taught by Hatakeyama ‘093 (Compounds (1-182) in [0069]). Thus, an ordinary skill the art would have constructed a trimer comprising a central phenylene group connected by three B-containing polycyclic moieties of Compound (3-139) of Fujita based on the knowledges of the dimer structure of Hatakeyama ‘093 and the trimer structure of Formula (7) of Wakamiya.
Wakamiya teaches that a compound having multiple cyclic structures provides high glass transition temperature, high thermal stability, high charge transport efficiency, amorphous stability, and low crystallization ([0006]-[0008]) such that the organic light emitting device comprising the multi cyclic compound provides high efficiency, low power consumption, and long life ([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 (3-139) of Fujita by incorporating it into the three terminal polycyclic ring structures of the Formula (7) of Wakamiya, as taught by Fujita, Wakamiya, and Hatakeyama ‘093.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high glass transition temperature, high thermal stability, high charge transport efficiency, amorphous stability, and low crystallization such that the organic light emitting device comprising the compound provides high efficiency, low power consumption, and long life based on the teaching of Wakamiya.
Furthermore, Fujita teaches that the polycyclic compound of Formula (3) of Fujita can be used to build a trimer comprising three polycyclic moieties connected by a linking group of phenylene ([0220]). Wakamiya teaches the general structural formula of the trimer represented by Formula (7) of Wakamiya. Hatakeyama ‘093 teaches how to build a dimer using two B-containing polycyclic structures and a central phenylene linker group. Thus, 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 provides Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093.
PNG
media_image6.png
329
509
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer comprising dibenzochrysene Compound (2-419) of Fujita, a second light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the second light emitting layer is formed by a coating composition containing Compound (1-101) of Fujita as a host (98 wt%) and the Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 as a dopant (2 wt%), and a solvent, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 6, 8-10, 17-18, and 20.
The Organic light emitting device of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the light emitting layer of the device is a blue light emitting layer.
It is reasonable to presume that the light emitting layer of the Organic light emitting device of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 is a blue light emitting layer.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 is the emitter of the Organic light emitting device of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093. The compound comprises the boron-containing heterocyclic moiety (i.e. the six six-membered condensed ring) which has similar core structure as DABNA-1 and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama ‘2016 (Fig. 2). Hatakeyama ‘2016 evidences that the boron-containing heterocyclic compound emits blue light (Table 1, emission wavelength around 460-470 nm). Thus, the Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 is expected to emit blue light because the boron-containing heterocyclic ring compound emits blue light.
Furthermore, the instant specification states that the light emitting layer is a blue light emitting layer (page 68, lines 9-10). The Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 has identical structure as Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 as outlined above and similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiments including at least the 11th compound on page 49 of the specification (i.e. position isomer).
Therefore, the light emitting layer of the Organic light emitting device of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 is a blue light emitting layer, meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
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 Organic light emitting device of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 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 claims 5 and 12-14, the Organic light emitting device of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 prepared by the Coating composition of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first light emitting layer comprising dibenzochrysene Compound (2-419) of Fujita, a second light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the second light emitting layer is formed by a coating composition containing Compound (1-101) of Fujita as a host (98 wt%) and the Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 as a dopant (2 wt%), and a solvent.
PNG
media_image11.png
249
412
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In the Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093, three terminal polycyclic moieties are connected to the central phenylene group via the substitution position R2 of Formula (3’) of Fujita; however, Fujita does teach that a trimer comprising unit structures each represented by Formula (3) can be connected by a linking group of phenylene ([0220]), indicating there is no restriction on which substitution position among R1 to R11 of Formula (3’) of Fujita can be connected to the central phenylene group.
Wakamiya teaches Formula (7) ([0085]-[0087]), wherein Y1, Y2, and Y3 can be boron; L3 and L4, L7 and L8, and L11 and L12 can be bonded to form a linking group in which the linking group can be nitrogen; L1 and L2, L5 and L6, and L9 and L10 can be hydrogen ([0086]-[0087]).
Furthermore, Hatakeyama ‘093 teaches that two terminal B-containing polycyclic moieties can be connected to the central phenylene group via the substitution position corresponding to the R5 (or R10) of Formula (3’) of Fujita (see Compound (1-1414) in [0111]).
PNG
media_image12.png
245
625
media_image12.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 Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 by substituting the connection position of the three terminal moieties of Compound (3-139) of Fujita from the position corresponding to the R2 of Formula (3’) of Fujita to the position R5 (or R10), as taught by Fujita, Wakamiya, and Hatakeyama ‘093.
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 connection positions 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 Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 (2).
PNG
media_image13.png
363
643
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 (2) comprising a first electrode, a first light emitting layer comprising dibenzochrysene Compound (2-419) of Fujita, a second light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the second light emitting layer is formed by a coating composition containing Compound (1-101) of Fujita as a host (98 wt%) and the Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 (2) as a dopant (2 wt%), and a solvent.
The modification provides Compound of Fujita as modified by Wakamiya and Hatakeyama ‘093 (2) has identical structure as the 13th embodiment on page 14 in claim 12.
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