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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 20, 26-27, and 37-40 have been canceled.
Claims 1-19, 21-25, 28-36, and 41 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The cancelation of claims 39-40 obviates the rejections of claims 39-40.
The amendments of claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-19, 21-25, 28-36, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 2023/0210000 A1, hereafter Yamashita) in view of Park et al. (KR 2013083817 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Park) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 29-32 of the reply filed 11/18/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1-19, 21-25, 28-36, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita/Park set forth in the Office Action of 08/18/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites that when L32 is a single bond, L31 is not ap-phenylene group; therefore, the amended claim 1 overcome the rejections.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The rejections refer to the Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Park (2) (see section 75 of the last Office Action) comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound 9-12 of Park as a host, Modified Compound C7 as an assisting dopant, and Compound p95-4 as a fluorescent emitting dopant), and a cathode.
In the device the compound corresponding to M3 is the Compound 9-12 of Park, wherein the structure corresponding to the L31 is a para-phenylene, which does not read on a proviso of the amended claim. The proviso requires L31 is not a para phenylene of Formula (TEMP-44) when L32 is a single bond. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, the Compound p95-4 and the Modified Compound C7 of the Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita still read on the compounds M1 and M2, respectively. The only deficiency of the device of Yamashita is the host compound of Applicant’s Formula (3).
Ma discloses a carbazole compound (page 1, hereafter Formula 1) used for an organic electroluminescence device (page 1, under the Summary of the Invention) and exemplifies Compound 49 (page 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ma teaches that that the compound of Ma can be used as a fluorescent host material (page 3, line 13-17). Ma teaches that the organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound of Ma provides high luminous efficiency, low cost, and long service life (page 3, line 13-17). Ma further teaches that the organic electroluminescence device comprising the Compound 49 provides lower driving voltage, high luminescence, high luminous efficiency than the comparative device comprising CBP otherwise same (Comparative example 1 vs. Example 49 in Table 3).
The Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita uses CBP as the host material. Therefore, 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 electroluminescence device of Yamashita by substituting the host compound CBP with the Compound 49 of Ma as taught by Yamashita and Ma.
The modification also provides Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound p95-4 as a fluorescent emitting dopant, Modified Compound C7 as an assisting dopant, and Compound 49 of Ma as a host), and a cathode, each dopant, assisting dopant, and host compounds read on the compounds M1, M2, and M3 of the instant claims. New grounds of rejections are applied using a new teaching reference by Ma.
Applicant argues that the present disclosure and the disclosure of Park are related to different technologies – fluorescence in the present disclosure and phosphorescence according to Park; thus, the emission mechanisms addressed by the present disclosure and Park are distinctly different.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
While the disclosure of Park is directed to a phosphorescent EL device, it is obvious to use the phosphorescent host compounds of Park in a fluorescent EL device because the role of a host in the light emitting layer of the both phosphorescent and fluorescent EL devices are same: transfer excitons to a dopant. It is common to use a host compound both in phosphorescent and fluorescent EL devices as evidenced by Ma (CN 103467450 A), wherein the compound of Ma can be used as a fluorescent and phosphorescent host materials (page 3, line 10-12).
An ordinary skill in the art would focus on the benefits of the compound of Park as compared to CBP because Park teaches direct comparison between the compound of Park and CBP.
Park teaches that the compound of Park provides high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage, high heat resistance, and improved color purity and lifespan (last paragraph of page 5 of the English translation). Furthermore, Park teaches that the organic electroluminescence device comprising the Compound 9-12 provides lower driving voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifetime than the comparative device comprising CBP otherwise same (Comparative example 1 vs. Example 180 in Table 5 of the original).
Therefore, 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 electroluminescence device of Yamashita (2) by substituting the host compound CBP with the Compound 9-12 of Park as taught by Yamashita and Park because the Compound 9-12 of Park provides the benefits as compared to CBP.
For at least the reason, the argument is not persuasive.
While Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejections are withdrawn because the Compound 9-12 of Park does not read on Applicant’s Formula (3) as outlined above. New grounds of rejections are applied.
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 1-19, 21-25, 28-36, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 2023/0210000 A1, hereafter Yamashita) in view of Ma et al. (CN 103467450 A, machine-translated English version is referred to, hereafter Ma).
Regarding claims 1-19, 21-25, 28-36, and 41, Yamashita discloses a compound (Formula (1)) used for an organic electroluminescence device ([0008]-[0009], [0034]-[0036]). Yamashita exemplifies Compound C7 as the compound of Formula (1) ([0220]). Yamashita teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode ([0119], [0250]). Yamashita teaches CBP to be used as a host material of the device (the first compound in [0127]).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yamashita does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescence device comprising the Compound 7 and CBP; however, Yamashita does teach the organic electroluminescence device can comprise the compound of Formula (1) as the emitter with a host material ([0035]) and CBP is one of exemplified host materials ([0127]).
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 electroluminescence device by incorporating Compound C7 as an emitting dopant with the CBP as a host as taught by Yamashita.
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 emitters and 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 Modified organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound C7 as a dopant and CBP as a host), and a cathode.
The Compound C7 has benzofuro carbazole groups at the position corresponding D1 and D2 of Formula (1) of Yamashita, which does not read on the limitation of the instant claim since at least one D2 of Applicant’s Formula (1) is required to be Formula (B23). However, Yamashita does teach that D1 and D2 in Formula (1) of Yamashita can be each a carbazol-9-yl group ([0041]) and exemplifies a bisbenzofurocarbazole group,
PNG
media_image4.png
121
339
media_image4.png
Greyscale
as the carbazole-9-yl group ([0049]).
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 C7 of the Modified organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita by substituting each of the benzofurocarbazole group with a bisbenzofurocarbazole group, as taught by Yamashita.
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 carbazo-9-yl groups 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 compound C7 of Yamashita, which has identical structure as the compound M2 of Formula (2) of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image5.png
354
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Modified organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita (2) comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (the Modified compound C7 of Yamashita as a dopant and CBP as a host), and a cathode.
The Modified organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita (2) does not contain a third fluorescent; however, Yamashita does teach that that the compound of Yamashita can be used as an assist dopant with a fluorescent light emitting material ([0122]).
Yamashita exemplifies a B-containing compound ([0123], the 4th compound on page 95, hereafter Compound p95-4) as the fluorescent light emitting material.
PNG
media_image6.png
219
596
media_image6.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 Modified organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita (2) by incorporating Compound p95-4 of Yamashita in the light emitting layer of the device, as taught by Yamashita.
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). Each substitution of the hosts, the assisting dopants, and the fluorescent dopants of Yamashita in the device of Yamashita 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 the Modified organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita (3) comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound p95-4 as a fluorescent emitting dopant, Modified Compound C7 as an assisting dopant, and CBP as a host), and a cathode.
The Modified organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita (3) has similar structure as the claimed device. The only difference is that the device of Yamashita has a host compound CBP which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s compound M3 represented by formula (3).
Ma discloses a carbazole compound (page 1, hereafter Formula 1) used for an organic electroluminescence device (page 1, under the Summary of the Invention) and exemplifies Compound 49 (page 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ma teaches that that the compound of Ma can be used as a fluorescent host material (page 3, line 13-17). Ma teaches that the organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound of Ma provides high luminous efficiency, low cost, and long service life (page 3, line 13-17). Furthermore, Ma teaches that the organic electroluminescence device comprising the Compound 49 provides lower driving voltage, high luminescence, high luminous efficiency than the comparative device comprising CBP otherwise same (Comparative example 1 vs. Example 49 in Table 3).
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 electroluminescence device of Yamashita (3) by substituting the host compound CBP with the Compound 49 of Ma as taught by Yamashita and Ma.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower driving voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifetime based on the teaching of Ma.
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 electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound p95-4 as a fluorescent emitting dopant, Modified Compound C7 as an assisting dopant, and Compound 49 of Ma as a host), and a cathode.
The Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties: 1) the Modified compound C7 of Yamashita is a delayed fluorescent compound, 2) the compound M2 (Modified compound C7 of Yamashita) and compound M3 (Compound 49 of Ma) satisfies Numerical Formula 1: S1(M3) > S1(M2), and 3) the compound M2 (Modified Compound C7) and compound M1 (Compound p95-4) satisfies Numerical Formula 2: S1(M2) > S1(M1).
It is reasonable to presume that the Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma inherently possesses the properties 1) through 3).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound M2 represented by formula (2) is a delayed fluorescent compound (lines 23-24 on page 2).
The instant specification states that the organic EL device in which the light emitting layer includes a compound M2 represented by formula (2) and a compound M3 represented by formula (3) satisfies the Numerical Formula 1 (lines 23-30 on page 42).
The instant specification states that the organic EL device in which the light emitting layer includes a compound M1 represented by formula (1) and a compound M2 represented by formula (2) satisfies the Numerical Formula 2 (lines 3-6 on page 146).
The Compound p95-4 of Yamashita has identical structure as Applicant’s compound M1 represented by Formula (11) (page 134). The Compound p95-4 has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment (page 145).
The Modified compound C7 of Yamashita has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (2). The Modified compound C7 of Yamashita has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment (the first compound on page 78 of the instant specification). Furthermore, Yamashita teaches that the compound of Yamashita represented by Formula (1) is a delayed fluorescence compound ([0092]).
The Compound 49 of Ma has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (3). The Compound 49 of Ma has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiments (at least the 4th compound on page 122).
Therefore, Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma possesses the properties 1) through 3).
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 electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma 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.
The Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma reads on all the limitations of claims 1-19, 21-25, and 28-36.
Yamashita does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma; however, Yamashita does teach that the compound of Yamashita can be used to manufactures a display ([0164]).
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 electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Yamashita.
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). Additionally, the substitution of the organic electroluminescence 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 Modified display device of Yamashita comprising Organic electroluminescence device of Yamashita and Ma, wherein the display device is an electronic device, meeting all the limitations of claim 41.
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