DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 07/08/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to the Drawings and the Specification as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/08/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/08/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (WO 2018/198844 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2018/212169 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/08/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (WO 2018/198844 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2018/212169 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/08/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (WO 2018/198844 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2018/212169 A1) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2015-0105201) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/08/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (WO 2018/198844 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2021/0143340 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2018/198844 A1 (herein referred to as “Ogawa et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Regarding Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, and 12, Ogawa et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image1.png
494
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1) comprising substrate (1), anode (2), hole-injecting layer (3), hole-transporting layer (4), light-emitting layer (5), electron-transporting layer (6), and cathode (7) (Fig. 1; [0053]); at least one of a plurality of light-emitting layers comprises a first host of formula (1), a second host of formula (2), and dopant material (Abstract; [0032]). The weight proportion of the first host is from 20-60%, including 40-50% ([0051]). Dopant materials include fluorescent materials, including thermally activated delayed fluorescence materials at 0.1-20 wt% (including 1-10 wt%) relative to the weight of host materials ([0072]). Ogawa et al. discloses the following embodiments for the first and second hosts, respectively:
PNG
media_image2.png
348
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 5) (second host) such that f = 1, Z3 = formula (3a) (with h = i = 0 and ring A = formula (3b) (with j = 0 and L31 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl))), L3 = substituted aromatic heterocyclic group having 3 carbon atoms (substituted triazinylene), g = 1, and Ar3 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 12 carbon atoms (biphenyl) of Applicant’s formula (3) and
PNG
media_image3.png
460
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 29) (first host) such that a = b = 0, Ar1 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 12 carbon atoms (biphenyl), and Y1 = N-Ar1 (with Ar1 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl)) of Applicant’s formulae (1) and (7). However, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose a dopant as recited in Claim 1.
Hatakeyama et al. discloses the following (thermally activated delayed fluorescent) light-emitting material for use in the light-emitting layer (comprising host and dopant materials) of an organic EL device as dopant material, the use of which results in an “excellent” device (Abstract; [0045]-[0046], [0117], [0119]):
PNG
media_image4.png
186
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 5) (light emitting dopant) such that v = x = 0, X4 = N-Ar4 (with Ar4 = phenyl), and rings C-E = aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (benzene) of Applicant’s formula (4). It would have been obvious to incorporate Compound (1-401) as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ogawa et al. (as dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hatakeyama et al. which teaches viable dopant materials for the light-emitting layer, the use of which results in an excellent organic EL device.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, it is the position of the Office that the light-emitting dopant as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. (above) would inherently read on the ΔEST energy as recited in the claim. Evidence is provided by the fact that Compound (1-401) is exactly identical to the Applicant’s preferred embodiment Compound 4-2 (see page 84 of the present national phase publication).
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (WO 2018/198844 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1) as applied above and in further view of Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2021/0143340 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2018/198844 A1 (herein referred to as “Ogawa et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Ogawa et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device of Claim 1 as shown above. Ogawa et al. discloses that the device comprises (optionally) a plurality of light-emitting layers, at least one of which comprises its inventive composition ([0032]); the composition comprising the first and second host materials may be combined with another host material ([0050]). However, Ogawa et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant’s general formula (2) as recited in the claim.
Nagao et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
340
378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 41) (first host) such that d = 0 or 1, e = 0, Ar2 = hydrogen, and L2 = substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms (substituted phenyl) of Applicant’s formula (2). Nagao et al. discloses its inventive compounds as hole-transporting host materials in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with enhanced luminance efficiency ([0079]). It would have been obvious to incorporate Compound [198] as disclosed by Nagao et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ogawa et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. (as additional host material in the light-emitting layer). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Nagao et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with enhanced luminance efficiency.
12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (WO 2018/198844 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2018/212169 A1) and Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2021/0143340 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2018/198844 A1 (herein referred to as “Ogawa et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2020/0190115 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2018/212169 A1 (herein referred to as “Hatakeyama et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Ogawa et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image1.png
494
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1) comprising substrate (1), anode (2), hole-injecting layer (3), hole-transporting layer (4), light-emitting layer (5), electron-transporting layer (6), and cathode (7) (Fig. 1; [0053]); at least one of a plurality of light-emitting layers comprises a first host of formula (1), a second host of formula (2), and dopant material (Abstract; [0032]). The weight proportion of the first host is from 20-60%, including 40-50% ([0051]). Dopant materials include fluorescent materials, including thermally activated delayed fluorescence materials at 0.1-20 wt% (including 1-10 wt%) relative to the weight of host materials ([0072]). Ogawa et al. discloses that the device comprises (optionally) a plurality of light-emitting layers, at least one of which comprises its inventive composition ([0032]); the composition comprising the first and second host materials may be combined with another host material ([0050]). Ogawa et al. discloses the following embodiment as the second host:
PNG
media_image2.png
348
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 5) (second host) such that f = 1, Z3 = formula (3a) (with h = i = 0 and ring A = formula (3b) (with j = 0 and L31 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl))), L3 = substituted aromatic heterocyclic group having 3 carbon atoms (substituted triazinylene), g = 1, and Ar3 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 12 carbon atoms (biphenyl) of Applicant’s formula (3). However, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose 1) the recited dopant nor 2) a first host of Applicant’s general formula (2).
Regarding point 1, Hatakeyama et al. discloses the following (thermally activated delayed fluorescent) light-emitting material for use in the light-emitting layer (comprising host and dopant materials) of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with high efficiency and long lifetime (Abstract; [0161]-[0162], [0165]):
PNG
media_image6.png
276
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 299) (light emitting dopant) with a ΔEST = 0.02 eV and capable of achieving high efficiency and deep blue color ([0564]-[0565]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound (1-1) as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ogawa et al. (as dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hatakeyama et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with high efficiency and long lifetime. However, Ogawa et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. does not explicitly disclose a first host of Applicant’s general formula (2).
Regarding point 2, Nagao et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
340
378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 41) (first host) such that d = 0 or 1, e = 0, Ar2 = hydrogen, and L2 = substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms (substituted phenyl) of Applicant’s formula (2). Nagao et al. discloses its inventive compounds as hole-transporting host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with enhanced luminance efficiency ([0079]). It would have been obvious to incorporate Compound [198] as disclosed by Nagao et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ogawa et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. (as additional host material in the light-emitting layer). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Nagao et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with enhanced luminance efficiency.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-19 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights