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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 9 March 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims.
No claims have been indicated as being amended. However, current claim 8 ends in a period, and current claims 9-10 have chemical structural formulae with improved resolution. The current claims are free of claim objections
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The specification amendment has been entered. The specification amendment has overcome the objection to the specification set forth in the last Office action. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 March 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the modification of forming a fused ring structure from the carbazolyl substituent of the boron and nitrogen containing polycyclic moiety is not taught by Rota Matir. Applicant additionally argues that the amendment would require a reconstruction of the prior art reference beyond what the reference suggests.
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).
Furthermore, with respect to In re Gordon, the current fact pattern differs from that of In re Gordon. The modification would not render the compound unusable for its intended purpose. Furthermore, the modification is motivated by a suggestion from the prior art.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 March 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the compounds of Lee are used as host materials rather than as light-emitting dopant materials comprising a boron and nitrogen containing polycyclic moiety. Applicant describes that Lee does not contain any teaching about the structures described by Lee being incorporated into any compound comprising a boron and nitrogen containing polycyclic moiety. Applicant contends that the mere existence of a structural motif int eh prior art is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness. Applicant asserts that Lee merely discloses indolocarbazole structure in a different context.
As outlined below, Lee teaches that the fused ring structure shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
208
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
possesses good thermal stability. As described below, the moiety shown above is similar to a phenyl-carbazole moiety with the only difference being that the substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole is further fused to the carbazole. The structural stability of the moiety shown above would be beneficial to a compound whether it is used as a host material or a light-emitting dopant material and would be effective regardless of the surrounding structure, because the surrounding structure would not inhibit the physical stability of the moiety shown above. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate this stable structure into the compounds of Rota Matir.
Therefore, Lee does not merely disclose the structure above, Lee provides guidance that the structure shown above has thermal stability. Again, this thermal stability would be desirable for materials in addition host materials.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 March 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee is not pertinent art and is not applicable for use in an obviousness rejection. Applicant additionally reiterates the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not rely upon Lee to modify Rota Matir.
A reference is analogous art if it if from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). "The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’" (quoting Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001, 120 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). See MPEP 2141.01(a).
A reference pertinent to the materials used in the light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device is analogous to both Rota Matir and the instant disclosure.
The argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not rely upon Lee to modify Rota Matir is addressed above. In sum, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make improvements to the thermal stability of the compounds used to produce an organic light emitting device. As described above, Lee teaches a structure known to have good thermal stability and the N-phenyl carbazole substituent of the compound of Rota Matir can be modified to comprise this structure taught by Lee to have thermal stability.
Applicant's arguments filed 9 March 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that only hindsight construction would lead to the modification of Rota Matir based upon the teachings of Lee to meet the current claim limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As described above, only knowledge from Rota Matir and Lee was relied upon in making the rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of the compounds of claim 14 have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, and 15: Rota Matir discloses the compound shown below {p. 107, the compound of Example 1}.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound is useful as a light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 73, 3rd paragraph}.
The compound has a peak emission wavelength of 463 nm {p. 107, final paragraph}.
Hatakeyama teaches that compounds have the structure of the compound of Rota Matir above a thermally activated delayed fluoresce emitters {paragraph [0046]}.
Rota Matir does not teach that the phenyl-carbazole group is instead and indolocarbazole group in which the indolo moiety is fused to both a benzene ring and the pyrrole ring of the carbazole moiety.
Lee teaches materials for use in organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0008]-[0010]}.
Lee teaches that compounds comprising the moiety shown below have good thermal stability {paragraphs [0050], [0167], and [0391]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
276
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The moiety shown above is similar to a phenyl-carbazole moiety with the only difference being that the substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole is further fused to the carbazole. Thus, fusing a substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole to the carbazole would yield the structure of Lee shown above.
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound of Rota Matir such that the substituent phenyl group of the phenyl-carbazole moiety is fused to the carbazole portion, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a group known to provide compounds with good thermal stability, based on the teaching of Lee. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have fused the phenyl group to the benzene ring of the carbazole not bound to the boron containing polycyclic moiety. The selection would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Rota Matir does not teach a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound of Rota Matir shown above in which the light emitting layer comprises two host materials.
However, Rota Matir teaches that the compound of Rota Matir shown above is useful as the light emitting material of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 73, 3rd paragraph}. Rota Matir additionally teaches that the organic electroluminescent device has the structure of (in sequential order) a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode {p. 77, 2nd paragraph}.
Rota Matir teaches that the emitting layer can comprise a multi-host system comprising mCBP (shown below left) and T2T (shown below right) {p. 80, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs}.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
240
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where mCBP has the structure of the instant Formula H-1 and T2T has the structure of the instant Formula H-2.
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 Rota Matir shown above by incorporating into the device structure (including the two host materials shown above) of Rota Matir described above, based on the teaching of Rota Matir. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 8: Rota Matir discloses the compound shown below {p. 119}.
PNG
media_image6.png
686
688
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The compound is useful as a light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 73, 3rd paragraph}.
Hatakeyama teaches that compounds have the structure of the compound of Rota Matir above a thermally activated delayed fluoresce emitters {paragraph [0046]}.
Rota Matir does not teach that the phenyl-carbazole group is instead and indolocarbazole group in which the indolo moiety is fused to both a benzene ring and the pyrrole ring of the carbazole moiety.
Lee teaches materials for use in organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0008]-[0010]}.
Lee teaches that compounds comprising the moiety shown below have good thermal stability {paragraphs [0050], [0167], and [0391]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
276
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The moiety shown above is similar to a phenyl-carbazole moiety with the only difference being that the substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole is further fused to the carbazole. Thus, fusing a substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole to the carbazole would yield the structure of Lee shown above.
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound of Rota Matir such that the substituent phenyl group of the phenyl-carbazole moiety is fused to the carbazole portion, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a group known to provide compounds with good thermal stability, based on the teaching of Lee. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have fused the phenyl group to the benzene ring of the carbazole not bound to the boron containing polycyclic moiety. The selection would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Rota Matir does not teach a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound of Rota Matir shown above in which the light emitting layer comprises two host materials.
However, Rota Matir teaches that the compound of Rota Matir shown above is useful as the light emitting material of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 73, 3rd paragraph}. Rota Matir additionally teaches that the organic electroluminescent device has the structure of (in sequential order) a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode {p. 77, 2nd paragraph}.
Rota Matir teaches that the emitting layer can comprise a multi-host system comprising mCBP (shown below left) and T2T (shown below right) {p. 80, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs}.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
240
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where mCBP has the structure of the instant Formula H-1 and T2T has the structure of the instant Formula H-2.
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 Rota Matir shown above by incorporating into the device structure (including the two host materials shown above) of Rota Matir described above, based on the teaching of Rota Matir. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 15: Rota Matir as modified by Hatakeyama and Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
As outlined above the device comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer, which together can be equated with a hole transport region.
Rota Matir as modified by Hatakeyama and Lee does not exemplify that the hole transport region comprises a compound having the structure of Formula H-a.
However, Rota Matir teaches that the electron blocking layer can comprise the compound shown below {pp. 114-115: Example D1, MAT3 is the material of the electron blocking layer.}.
PNG
media_image7.png
574
586
media_image7.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 device described above, by using the compound MAT3 as the material of the electron blocking layer, based on the teaching of Rota Matir. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claim 10: Rota Matir as modified by Hatakeyama and Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Rota Matir as modified by Hatakeyama and Lee does not teach that one of the host materials is a compound having the structure of a compound of the current claim 10.
Ahn exemplifies the compound shown below as a compound of Lee {(paragraph [0110]: The compounds of the disclosure of Lee are exemplified by the Compounds 1 through 59.), (p. 10, Compound 1)}.
PNG
media_image8.png
382
421
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The host materials of Ahn can be used to produce organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency and good durability {paragraph [0113]}. Additionally, the compounds have reduced intermolecular attraction {paragraph [0111]}.
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 device of Hatakeyama to have two host materials in the light-emitting layer, the first being host material of Hatakeyama shown above, and the second being the compound of Ahn shown above, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama, Kondakova, and Ahn. The modification would have been The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the use of multiple host materials and the host material of Ahn) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Ahn’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified host compounds of Ahn), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additional host material having reduced intermolecular attraction that is known to be used to produce devices with high efficiency and high durability.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), and Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 13-14: Rota Matir as modified by Hatakeyama and Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Rota Matir as modified by Hatakeyama and Lee does not teach that the emissive layer comprises an additional dopant that is a phosphorescent metal complex.
However, So teaches organic light emitting devices in which the emissive layer comprises a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a sensitizer that is a phosphorescent material {abstract; Fig. 4 as described in paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0016]; paragraph [0045]}.
So teaches that such an arrangement leads to reduced degradation and provide sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization {paragraphs [0035] and [0038]-[0039]}.
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 device taught by Rota Matir as modified by Lee such that the emissive layer comprised a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a phosphorescent sensitizer for the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material, based on the teaching of So. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with reduced degradation and sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization, as taught by So.
Rota Matir as modified by Lee and So do not exemplify a that the sensitizer has the structure of the instant Formula D-2.
So teaches that the phosphorescent sensitizer can have an emission spectrum that overlaps with the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material {paragraph [0045]}.
Li teaches the compound shown below as a phosphorescent material for use in organic electroluminescent devices {abstract and Fig.1}.
PNG
media_image9.png
306
274
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compound of Li has an emission spectrum that overlaps with 463 nm (the peak emission wavelength of the compound of Rota Matir, as described above) {Figure 1}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Rota Matir by using the compound of Li shown above as the phosphorescent sensitizer, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a phosphorescent material known to have an emission spectrum that overlaps with 463 nm (the peak emission wavelength of the compound of Rota Matir), as taught by So. Additionally, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/014001 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”), Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (“Efficient and Stable White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Employing a Single Emitter” Advanced Materials, vol. 26 (2014) pp. 2931-2936) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 16-19: Rota Matir discloses the compound shown below {p. 107, the compound of Example 1}.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound is useful as a light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 73, 3rd paragraph}.
The compound has a peak emission wavelength of 463 nm {p. 107, final paragraph}.
Hatakeyama teaches that compounds have the structure of the compound of Rota Matir above a thermally activated delayed fluoresce emitters {paragraph [0046]}.
Rota Matir does not teach that the phenyl-carbazole group is instead and indolocarbazole group in which the indolo moiety is fused to both a benzene ring and the pyrrole ring of the carbazole moiety.
Lee teaches materials for use in organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0008]-[0010]}.
Lee teaches that compounds comprising the moiety shown below have good thermal stability {paragraphs [0050], [0167], and [0391]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
276
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The moiety shown above is similar to a phenyl-carbazole moiety with the only difference being that the substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole is further fused to the carbazole. Thus, fusing a substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole to the carbazole would yield the structure of Lee shown above.
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound of Rota Matir such that the substituent phenyl group of the phenyl-carbazole moiety is fused to the carbazole portion, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a group known to provide compounds with good thermal stability, based on the teaching of Lee. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have fused the phenyl group to the benzene ring of the carbazole not bound to the boron containing polycyclic moiety. The selection would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Rota Matir does not teach a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound of Rota Matir shown above in which the light emitting layer comprises two host materials.
However, Rota Matir teaches that the compound of Rota Matir shown above is useful as the light emitting material of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 73, 3rd paragraph}. Rota Matir additionally teaches that the organic electroluminescent device has the structure of (in sequential order) a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode {p. 77, 2nd paragraph}.
Rota Matir teaches that the emitting layer can comprise a multi-host system comprising mCBP (shown below left) and T2T (shown below right) {p. 80, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs}.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
240
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where mCBP has the structure of the instant Formula H-1 and T2T has the structure of the instant Formula H-2.
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 Rota Matir shown above by incorporating into the device structure (including the two host materials shown above) of Rota Matir described above, based on the teaching of D Rota Matir 1. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Rota Matir does not teach that the emissive layer comprises an additional dopant that is a phosphorescent metal complex.
However, So teaches organic light emitting devices in which the emissive layer comprises a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a sensitizer that is a phosphorescent material {abstract; Fig. 4 as described in paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0016]; paragraph [0045]}.
So teaches that such an arrangement leads to reduced degradation and provide sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization {paragraphs [0035] and [0038]-[0039]}.
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 device taught by Rota Matir as modified by Lee such that the emissive layer comprised a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a phosphorescent sensitizer for the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material, based on the teaching of So. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with reduced degradation and sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization, as taught by So.
Rota Matir as modified by Lee and So do not exemplify a that the sensitizer has the structure of the instant Formula D-2.
So teaches that the phosphorescent sensitizer can have an emission spectrum that overlaps with the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material {paragraph [0045]}.
Li teaches the compound shown below as a phosphorescent material for use in organic electroluminescent devices {abstract and Fig.1}.
PNG
media_image9.png
306
274
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compound of Li has an emission spectrum that overlaps with 463 nm (the peak emission wavelength of the compound of Rota Matir, as described above) {Figure 1}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Rota Matir by using the compound of Li shown above as the phosphorescent sensitizer, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a phosphorescent material known to have an emission spectrum that overlaps with 463 nm (the peak emission wavelength of the compound of Rota Matir), as taught by So. Additionally, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 20: Rota Matir discloses the compound shown below {p. 119}.
PNG
media_image6.png
686
688
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The compound is useful as a light-emitting dopant of a light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 73, 3rd paragraph}.
Hatakeyama teaches that compounds have the structure of the compound of Rota Matir above a thermally activated delayed fluoresce emitters {paragraph [0046]}.
Rota Matir does not teach that the phenyl-carbazole group is instead and indolocarbazole group in which the indolo moiety is fused to both a benzene ring and the pyrrole ring of the carbazole moiety.
Lee teaches materials for use in organic light-emitting devices {paragraphs [0008]-[0010]}.
Lee teaches that compounds comprising the moiety shown below have good thermal stability {paragraphs [0050], [0167], and [0391]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
276
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The moiety shown above is similar to a phenyl-carbazole moiety with the only difference being that the substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole is further fused to the carbazole. Thus, fusing a substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole to the carbazole would yield the structure of Lee shown above.
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound of Rota Matir such that the substituent phenyl group of the phenyl-carbazole moiety is fused to the carbazole portion, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a group known to provide compounds with good thermal stability, based on the teaching of Lee. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have fused the phenyl group to the benzene ring of the carbazole not bound to the boron containing polycyclic moiety. The selection would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Rota Matir does not teach a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound of Rota Matir shown above in which the light emitting layer comprises two host materials.
However, Rota Matir teaches that the compound of Rota Matir shown above is useful as the light emitting material of an organic electroluminescent device {p. 73, 3rd paragraph}. Rota Matir additionally teaches that the organic electroluminescent device has the structure of (in sequential order) a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode {p. 77, 2nd paragraph}.
Rota Matir teaches that the emitting layer can comprise a multi-host system comprising mCBP (shown below left) and T2T (shown below right) {p. 80, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs}.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
240
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Where mCBP has the structure of the instant Formula H-1 and T2T has the structure of the instant Formula H-2.
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 Rota Matir shown above by incorporating into the device structure (including the two host materials shown above) of Rota Matir described above, based on the teaching of Rota Matir. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Rota Matir does not teach that the emissive layer comprises an additional dopant that is a phosphorescent metal complex.
However, So teaches organic light emitting devices in which the emissive layer comprises a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a sensitizer that is a phosphorescent material {abstract; Fig. 4 as described in paragraph [0039]; paragraph [0016]; paragraph [0045]}.
So teaches that such an arrangement leads to reduced degradation and provide sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization {paragraphs [0035] and [0038]-[0039]}.
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 device taught by Rota Matir as modified by Lee such that the emissive layer comprised a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a phosphorescent sensitizer for the thermally activated delayed fluorescence material, based on the teaching of So. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with reduced degradation and sensitization of up to 100% exciton utilization, as taught by So.
Rota Matir as modified by Lee and So do not exemplify a that the sensitizer has the structure of the instant Formula D-2.
So teaches that the phosphorescent sensitizer can have an emission spectrum that overlaps with the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material {paragraph [0045]}.
Li teaches the compound shown below as a phosphorescent material for use in organic electroluminescent devices {abstract and Fig.1}.
PNG
media_image9.png
306
274
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compound of Li has an emission spectrum that overlaps with 463 nm (the peak emission wavelength of the compound of Rota Matir, as described above) {Figure 1}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Rota Matir by using the compound of Li shown above as the phosphorescent sensitizer, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a phosphorescent material known to have an emission spectrum that overlaps with 463 nm (the peak emission wavelength of the compound of Rota Matir), as taught by So. Additionally, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786