DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 23, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on March 23, 2026.
Claims 1, 3 – 10, 12, 13, 28, 30, and 31 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 2 has been cancelled previously.
Claims 1 and 3 – 37 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 28, and 32 – 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon in view of Moon 2 as set forth in the office action filed December 23, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 11, 13 – 29, and 31 – 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Moon 2 as set forth in the office action filed December 23, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 11, 13 – 25, 27 – 30 and 32 – 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Moon 2 as set forth in the office action filed December 23, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 – 37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 refers to Formula E-a in claim 6. Claim 6 has been amended to remove Formula E-a. Therefore claim 29 lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear which atoms, if any, the claimed variables are intended to refer to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 3 – 28 and 32 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon 3 (WO2018021841A1) in view of Moon 2 (US20220127288A1).
As per claims 1, 3 – 5, 10 – 25, 28, and 33 – 37, Moon 3 teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer contains at least a first compound ([42]: “The organic electroluminescent device according to the present disclosure comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer disposed between the first and second electrodes. The organic layer may comprise at least one compound of formula 1.”)
Wherein the first compound has a structure of H-L-E, wherein the H has a structure represented by Formula A-4
PNG
media_image1.png
164
136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Moon teaches an organic electroluminescent compound represented by formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
180
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([10]). A particular compound taught by Moon 3 is compound C-1
PNG
media_image3.png
84
104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([43]), which reads on the claimed Formula A-4 wherein Z1 to Z2 and Z6 to Z8 are CRz1, Zh1 to Zh8 are all CRzh where Rz1 and Rzh are all hydrogen; the compound is represented by H-28 in claim 5; L is a single bond as required by claim 11, namely group L-0 in claim 33; E has the structure represented by E-12
PNG
media_image4.png
92
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein RA represents a mono-substitution of an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; the group is represented by E-1 in claim 10. This compound is the same as compound 1-135 in claim 12.)
Moon 3 teaches that the organic electroluminescent compound of formula 1 may be comprised in the light emitting layer as a host material and that the light-emitting layer may further comprise a dopant ([74]). Moon 3 teaches that the dopant is preferably a metalated complex of iridium ([124]). Moon 3 does not specifically teach:
Wherein the organic layer contains a second compound, wherein the second compound is a metal complex, wherein the metal is selected from a metal with a relative atomic mass greater than 40, and the metal complex comprises a ligand La which has a structure represented by Formula C
PNG
media_image5.png
204
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Moon 2 teaches organic light emitting devices containing a metal compound having a Formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
166
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). Moon 2 teaches that these compounds can improve the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light emitting device (Abstract). A particular compound taught by Moon 2 is compound 168
PNG
media_image7.png
214
348
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0098]). This reads on the claimed Formula wherein ring A and ring B are each independently an aromatic ring having 6 carbon atoms; Ri represents a mono-substitution; Rii represents a non-substitution; Y represents O; X1 and X2 represent CRx; R and Rx are all hydrogen; Ri is unsubstituted alkyl having 3 carbon atoms; the compound is represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 14 and Formula 2-20 in claim 17 and ligand La3 in claim 20; the compound is of formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q in claim 21, wherein M is a metal with an atomic mass greater than 40, namely Ir as required by claim 22, m is 2, n is 1 and q is 0 and Lb is of the structure
PNG
media_image8.png
102
106
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein Ra and Rc are alkyl groups having 5 carbon atoms, namely Lb31
PNG
media_image9.png
142
76
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a dopant, such as that of the claimed Formula, because Moon 3 teaches that Ir-based dopants are suitable dopants for use in the OLEDs and Moon 2 teaches that compounds within the scope of the claimed Formula provide improved efficiency and lifespan to the OLEDs that use them as dopants (Abstract).
As per claim 15, while compound 168 does not contain at least one of X1 to X5 to be a nitrogen as claimed, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that X1 to X4 can be selected from CR1 or N ([0012]). Furthermore Moon 2 teaches compounds, such as compound 18
PNG
media_image10.png
198
302
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein the ring coordinated to the Ir-atom contains a second nitrogen atom. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a compound such as compound 168 to include a second nitrogen atom and arrive at the claimed compound.
Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 35 – 37, while compound 168 does not contain the additional substituents of claims 35 and 36 and does not read on any of the particularly claimed compounds in claim 37. However, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that the claimed positions can be substituted ([0022]). Moon 2 also teaches compound such as compound 174
PNG
media_image11.png
202
342
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which contains two additional methyl substituents as required by the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 168 above to include two methyl substituents on the bottom phenyl ring and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. Similarly, the only difference between compound 174 above and claimed compound C79
PNG
media_image12.png
150
224
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is the extra carbon atom in the alkyl group of compound 174. Both alkyl groups fall within the definition of R and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 174 of Moon 2 and arrive at claimed compound C79.
Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 6 – 9, and 32, another compound taught by Moon 3 is compound C-16
PNG
media_image13.png
88
88
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([46]), wherein H-L are the same as in compound C-1. The group corresponding to the claimed E group in compound C-16 of Moon 3 is represented by Formula E-11
PNG
media_image14.png
98
110
media_image14.png
Greyscale
in claims 1 and 6, wherein RA represents two substitutions and both substitutions are an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms. The claimed E group in compound C-16 of Moon 3 is represented by Formula E-2
PNG
media_image15.png
92
90
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in claims 7 – 9 and 32, wherein RA represents two substitutions and both substitutions are an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to swtich compound C-16 for compound C-1 of Moon 3 because they both fall within Formula (1) as taught by Moon 3 and are taught to be predictably suitable for use in the invention of Moon 3.
As per claim 26, Moon 3 teaches:
Wherein the device emits red light or white light ([172]: “In addition, the organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure may emit white light by further comprising at least one light-emitting layer, which comprises a blue electroluminescent compound, a red electroluminescent compound or a green electroluminescent compound known in the field, besides the compound of the present disclosure.”)
As per claim 27, Moon 3 teaches:
A display assembly, comprising the electroluminescent device ([180]: “By using the organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure, a display device…. Can be produced.”)
Claims 1, 3 – 28, 30 and 32 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2019177407A1) in view of Moon 2 (US20220127288A1).
As per claims 1, 3 – 25, 28, 30 and 32 – 37, Kim teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer contains at least a first compound ([218]: “The organic electroluminescent device according to the present disclosure may comprise at least one light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, in which the light emitting layer may comprise a host and dopant, and the host may comprise the composition material for an organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure. The organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure may comprise the compound represented by formula 1 as the first host material.”)
Wherein the first compound has a structure of H-L-E, wherein the H has a structure represented by Formula A-1
PNG
media_image16.png
170
132
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent compound represented by formula 1
PNG
media_image17.png
186
268
media_image17.png
Greyscale
([6]). A particular compound taught by Kim is compound C-240
PNG
media_image18.png
132
88
media_image18.png
Greyscale
([101]), which reads on the claimed Formula A-1 wherein Z1 to Z2 and Z6 to Z8 are CRz1, Zh1 to Zh8 are all CRzh where Rz1 and Rzh are all hydrogen; the compound is represented by H-1 in claim 5; L is a single bond as required by claim 11, namely group L-0 in claim 33; E has the structure represented by E-11
PNG
media_image14.png
98
110
media_image14.png
Greyscale
in claims 1 and 6, wherein RA represents two substitutions and both substitutions are an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; this group is represented by Formula E-2
PNG
media_image15.png
92
90
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in claims 7 – 9 and 32, wherein RA represents two substitutions and both substitutions are an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms; the group is represented by E-19 in claim 10. The compound is the same as compound 1-45 in claim 12.)
Kim teaches that the organic electroluminescent compound of formula 1 may be comprised in the light emitting layer as a host material and that the light-emitting layer may further comprise a dopant ([218]). Kim teaches that the dopant is preferably a metalated complex of iridium ([221]). Kim does not specifically teach:
Wherein the organic layer contains a second compound, wherein the second compound is a metal complex, wherein the metal is selected from a metal with a relative atomic mass greater than 40, and the metal complex comprises a ligand La which has a structure represented by Formula C
PNG
media_image5.png
204
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Moon 2 teaches organic light emitting devices containing a metal compound having a Formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
166
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). Moon 2 teaches that these compounds can improve the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light emitting device (Abstract). A particular compound taught by Moon 2 is compound 168
PNG
media_image7.png
214
348
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0098]). This reads on the claimed Formula wherein ring A and ring B are each independently an aromatic ring having 6 carbon atoms; Ri represents a mono-substitution; Rii represents a non-substitution; Y represents O; X1 and X2 represent CRx; R and Rx are all hydrogen; Ri is unsubstituted alkyl having 3 carbon atoms; the compound is represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 14 and Formula 2-20 in claim 17 and ligand La3 in claim 20; the compound is of formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q in claim 21, wherein M is a metal with an atomic mass greater than 40, namely Ir as required by claim 22, m is 2, n is 1 and q is 0 and Lb is of the structure
PNG
media_image8.png
102
106
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein Ra and Rc are alkyl groups having 5 carbon atoms, namely Lb31
PNG
media_image9.png
142
76
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a dopant, such as that of the claimed Formula, because Kim teaches that Ir-based dopants are suitable dopants for use in the OLEDs and Moon 2 teaches that compounds within the scope of the claimed Formula provide improved efficiency and lifespan to the OLEDs that use them as dopants (Abstract).
As per claim 15, while compound 168 does not contain at least one of X1 to X5 to be a nitrogen as claimed, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that X1 to X4 can be selected from CR1 or N ([0012]). Furthermore Moon 2 teaches compounds, such as compound 18
PNG
media_image10.png
198
302
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein the ring coordinated to the Ir-atom contains a second nitrogen atom. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a compound such as compound 168 to include a second nitrogen atom and arrive at the claimed compound.
Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 35 – 37, while compound 168 does not contain the additional substituents of claims 35 and 36 and does not read on any of the particularly claimed compounds in claim 37. However, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that the claimed positions can be substituted ([0022]). Moon 2 also teaches compound such as compound 174
PNG
media_image11.png
202
342
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which contains two additional methyl substituents as required by the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 168 above to include two methyl substituents on the bottom phenyl ring and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. Similarly, the only difference between compound 174 above and claimed compound C79
PNG
media_image12.png
150
224
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is the extra carbon atom in the alkyl group of compound 174. Both alkyl groups fall within the definition of R and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 174 of Moon 2 and arrive at claimed compound C79.
Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 26, Kim teaches:
Wherein the device emits red light or white light ([260]: “In addition, the organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure may emit white light by further comprising at least one light-emitting layer, which comprises a blue electroluminescent compound, a red electroluminescent compound or a green electroluminescent compound known in the field, besides the compound of the present disclosure.”)
As per claim 27, Kim teaches:
A display assembly, comprising the electroluminescent device ([269]: “The present disclosure can provide a display device using the composition material for an organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound represented by formula 1 and the compound represented by formula 2.”)\
Claims 1, 3 – 28, and 31 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US20220399517A1) in view of Moon 2 (US20220127288A1).
As per claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 25, 28, and 31 – 37, Fleetham teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer contains at least a first compound ([0006]: “In one aspect, the present disclosure provides an OLED comprising an anode, a cathode, and an emissive layer, disposed between the anode and the cathode. The emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant, a first host, and a second host.”)
Wherein the first compound has a structure of H-L-E, wherein the H has a structure represented by Formula A-6
PNG
media_image19.png
174
118
media_image19.png
Greyscale
(Fleetham teaches that the second host can be represented by
PNG
media_image20.png
210
172
media_image20.png
Greyscale
([0107]). A particular compound taught by Fleetham is
PNG
media_image21.png
224
264
media_image21.png
Greyscale
on page 450, which reads on the claimed Formula A-6 wherein Z1 to Z2 and Z6 to Z8 are CRz1, Zh1 to Zh8 are all CRzh where Rz1 and Rzh are all hydrogen; the compound is represented by H-54 in claim 5; L is a single bond as required by claim 11, namely group L-0 in claim 33; E has the structure represented by E-6
PNG
media_image22.png
132
136
media_image22.png
Greyscale
, wherein RA represents a mono substitutions that is an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; the group is represented by E-19 in claim 10. The compound is the same as compound 1-9 in claim 12.)
Fleetham teaches that the organic electroluminescent compound of formula 1 may be comprised in the light emitting layer as a host material and that the light-emitting layer may further comprise a dopant ([Abstract]). Fleetham teaches that the dopant is preferably a metalated complex of iridium ([0118]). Kim does not specifically teach:
Wherein the organic layer contains a second compound, wherein the second compound is a metal complex, wherein the metal is selected from a metal with a relative atomic mass greater than 40, and the metal complex comprises a ligand La which has a structure represented by Formula C
PNG
media_image5.png
204
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Moon 2 teaches organic light emitting devices containing a metal compound having a Formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
166
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). Moon 2 teaches that these compounds can improve the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light emitting device (Abstract). A particular compound taught by Moon 2 is compound 168
PNG
media_image7.png
214
348
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0098]). This reads on the claimed Formula wherein ring A and ring B are each independently an aromatic ring having 6 carbon atoms; Ri represents a mono-substitution; Rii represents a non-substitution; Y represents O; X1 and X2 represent CRx; R and Rx are all hydrogen; Ri is unsubstituted alkyl having 3 carbon atoms; the compound is represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 14 and Formula 2-20 in claim 17 and ligand La3 in claim 20; the compound is of formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q in claim 21, wherein M is a metal with an atomic mass greater than 40, namely Ir as required by claim 22, m is 2, n is 1 and q is 0 and Lb is of the structure
PNG
media_image8.png
102
106
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein Ra and Rc are alkyl groups having 5 carbon atoms, namely Lb31
PNG
media_image9.png
142
76
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a dopant, such as that of the claimed Formula, because Fleetham teaches that Ir-based dopants are suitable dopants for use in the OLEDs and Moon 2 teaches that compounds within the scope of the claimed Formula provide improved efficiency and lifespan to the OLEDs that use them as dopants (Abstract).
As per claim 15, while compound 168 does not contain at least one of X1 to X5 to be a nitrogen as claimed, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that X1 to X4 can be selected from CR1 or N ([0012]). Furthermore Moon 2 teaches compounds, such as compound 18
PNG
media_image10.png
198
302
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein the ring coordinated to the Ir-atom contains a second nitrogen atom. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a compound such as compound 168 to include a second nitrogen atom and arrive at the claimed compound.
Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 35 – 37, while compound 168 does not contain the additional substituents of claims 35 and 36 and does not read on any of the particularly claimed compounds in claim 37. However, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that the claimed positions can be substituted ([0022]). Moon 2 also teaches compound such as compound 174
PNG
media_image11.png
202
342
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which contains two additional methyl substituents as required by the claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 168 above to include two methyl substituents on the bottom phenyl ring and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. Similarly, the only difference between compound 174 above and claimed compound C79
PNG
media_image12.png
150
224
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is the extra carbon atom in the alkyl group of compound 174. Both alkyl groups fall within the definition of R and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 174 of Moon 2 and arrive at claimed compound C79.
Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 26, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the device emits red light or white light ([0005]: “Alternatively, the OLED can be designed to emit white light.”)
As per claim 27, Fleetham teaches:
A display assembly, comprising the electroluminescent device ([0149 – 0150]: “In another aspect, the present disclosure also provides a consumer product that comprises an inventive OLED of the present disclosure… In some embodiments, the consumer product can be one of a flat panel display.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights