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.
Examiner’s Remark
This Office action is being made non-final because the new rejection of claim 12 is not necessitated by amendment. The previous rejection of claims 11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) (hereafter “Murakami”) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”) should have included claim 12 in the statement of rejection.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 3 March 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 6, 11, 14-16, and 20 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending.
The amendment to the specification has been entered. The amendment to the specification has overcome the objection to the specification set forth in the last Office action. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 11 has overcome the rejection of claims 11-12 and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 11 has overcome the rejection of claims 11, 13-15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and Holmes et al. (“Blue organic electrophosphorescence using exothermic host–guest energy transfer”, Applied Physics Letters, (2002), vol. 82, pp. 2422-2424.) (hereafter “Holmes”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), Holmes et al. (“Blue organic electrophosphorescence using exothermic host–guest energy transfer”, Applied Physics Letters, (2002), vol. 82, pp. 2422-2424.) (hereafter “Holmes”), and Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 11-12 and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”) set forth in the last Office action 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 11, 13-15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”) set forth in the last Office action 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and Holmes et al. (“Blue organic electrophosphorescence using exothermic host–guest energy transfer”, Applied Physics Letters, (2002), vol. 82, pp. 2422-2424.) (hereafter “Holmes”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), Holmes et al. (“Blue organic electrophosphorescence using exothermic host–guest energy transfer”, Applied Physics Letters, (2002), vol. 82, pp. 2422-2424.) (hereafter “Holmes”), and Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 107501334 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chen”) in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), and So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) (hereafter “Murakami”) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant specification describes in Tables 2 and 3 results showing nonobvious over the cited prior art.
Applicant compares multiple devices comprising the instant comparative compounds A, B, and C vs. the compounds BD2, BD5, BD7, BD86 of the instant disclosure. While comparative compound A corresponds to the disclosure of Murakami, and comparative compound C corresponds to the disclosure of Itoh, there are multiple differences between the instant comparative compounds A, B, and C and the compounds BD2, BD5, BD7, BD86 of the instant disclosure. From the proffered data, it cannot be determined if the bridging unit of the compounds of the instant disclosure is the change that results in the improved results observed by Applicant compared to the devices of Comparative Compound A, or if the differences in substituent structure between the compounds of the instant disclosure and Comparative Compound A leads to the improved results.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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) 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) (hereafter “Murakami”) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”).
Regarding claims 11-20: Murakami discloses the compounds shown below {pp. 17-18 and 20-21}.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
570
1050
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
560
978
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
612
1038
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
600
1042
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Murakami does not disclose similar compounds to the compounds shown above except for having a group bridging between two ligands consisting of a methylene group and either a bivalent amine or ether.
However, Murakami teaches that the compounds of Murakami have the structure Formula (1) of Murakami {paragraph [0009]}. Murakami teaches that generally the ligands can be linked together {paragraphs [0012] and [0022]}. Murakami exemplifies that the linking structure between two ligands can comprise carbon atoms, nitrogen atoms and/or oxygen atoms {paragraph [0095]}. This is exemplified by compounds of Formula (143) and Formula (144) {p. 21}.
Itoh teaches Pt complexes for use as light emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices {abstract and paragraphs [0011]-[0016] and [0119]-[0120]}.
The compounds of Itoh comprise a linking group bonding the two ligands of the Pt complexes of Itoh {paragraphs [0013] and [0015]}.
Itoh exemplifies the compounds shown below {p. 13}.
PNG
media_image7.png
672
510
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thus, the linking group
PNG
media_image8.png
68
148
media_image8.png
Greyscale
was known at the time the invention was effectively filed.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified one or more of the compounds of Murakami shown above by substituting on of the linking group
PNG
media_image8.png
68
148
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in place of the linking groups that are present, based on the teaching of Itoh and Murakami. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of
PNG
media_image8.png
68
148
media_image8.png
Greyscale
would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups linking groups of Itoh), 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.
Where the resultant compound(s) would have the structure of one of the instant BD1 or BD2.
Regarding claims 1-3: Murakami as modified by Itoh teaches all of the features with respect to claim 11, as outlined above. Claim 1 differs from claim 11 in that the claimed compound is comprised in an organic electroluminescent device.
Murakami does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound shown above.
However, Murakami does teach a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode {abstract and paragraphs [0040]-[0058], [0065]-[0066], [0104], and [0109]: The compounds of the disclosure of Murikami are useful as light-emitting materials for organic electroluminescent devices where the organic electroluminescent device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode.}.
The interlayer comprising an emission layer that comprises a compound of the disclosure of Murakami as the light-emitting dopant {(paragraphs [0104] and [0109])}.
The light-emitting layer further comprises a host material, where the host comprises a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host that are difference compounds, and where the amount of host is greater than the amount of dopant {paragraphs [0123], [0269]-[0270], and [0272]-[0274], and [0277]}.
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 compound of Murakami described above by using it as the light-emitting material of the light-emitting layer of the device structure of Murakami described above, based on the teaching of Murakami. 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 10: Murakami as modified by Itoh teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. An organic light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) (hereafter “Murakami”) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) and Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”).
Regarding claim 4: Murakami as modified by Itoh teaches all of the features with respect to claim 3, as described above.
Murakami does not exemplify a specific device comprises two host materials having different chemical formulas.
However, Murakami teaches that the host comprises a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host that are different compounds {paragraphs [0123], [0269]-[0270], and [0272]-[0274], and [0277]}.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a triazine derivative {paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host, which can be a triazine derivative.}.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
Nishizeki teaches organic electroluminescence devices {paragraphs [0557]-[0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that multiple hosts can be used in a light emitting layer {paragraph [0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device {paragraph [0566]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have further modified the organic light emitting device of Murakami by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Murakami, Kondakova ‘516, and Nishizeki. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516 and Nishizeki.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) (hereafter “Murakami”) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”).
Regarding claim 5: Murakami as modified by Itoh teaches all of the features with respect to claim 3, as described above.
Murakami does not teach that the emissive layer comprises an additional dopant that is a thermally active delayed fluorescence emitter.
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 further modified the device taught by Murakami such that the emissive layer comprised a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material in addition to the phosphorescent material of Murakami, which would act as a 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) (hereafter “Murakami”) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”), Holmes et al. (“Blue organic electrophosphorescence using exothermic host–guest energy transfer”, Applied Physics Letters, (2002), vol. 82, pp. 2422-2424.) (hereafter “Holmes”), and Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 6-7: Murakami as modified by Itoh teaches all of the features with respect to claim 3, as described above.
Murakami does not exemplify a specific device comprises two host materials having different chemical formulas.
However, Murakami teaches that the host comprises a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host that are different compounds {paragraphs [0123], [0269]-[0270], and [0272]-[0274], and [0277]}.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a triazine derivative {paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host, which can be a triazine derivative.}.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
Nishizeki teaches organic electroluminescence devices {paragraphs [0557]-[0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that multiple hosts can be used in a light emitting layer {paragraph [0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device {paragraph [0566]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have further modified the organic light emitting device of Murakami by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Murakami, Kondakova ‘516, and Nishizeki. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516 and Nishizeki.
Murakami as modified by Itoh Kondakova ‘516 and Nishizeki does not teach that the first host material has the structure of one of the instant HTH1 to HTH52 and the second host material has the structure of one of the instant ETH1 to ETH84.
As described above, Kondakova ‘516 teaches one of the host materials can be a hole transporting host and can be a carbazole derivative.
Holmes teaches that mCP, shown below, is a material that can be used as the host material of the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device for a phosphorescent dopant {(abstract and p. 2422, 2nd col., 2nd paragraph.), (Fig. 1: Structure of mCP)}.
PNG
media_image9.png
292
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Holmes teaches that devices using mCP as the host material had higher efficiencies than devices using CBP {abstract, p. 2423, 1st col., 2nd paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device taught by Murakami as modified by Itoh by using mCP as the first host material of the light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Holmes. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host material shown to have been used to produce organic light emitting devices with high efficiencies, as taught by Holmes.
Murakami as modified by Itoh, Kondakova, Nishizeki, and Holmes does not teach that the second host material has the structure of one of the instant ETH1 to ETH84.
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 3)}.
PNG
media_image10.png
738
698
media_image10.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 further modified the device of Murakami such that the 2nd host material is the compound Ahn shown above, based on the teaching of Ahn. 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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2009/0079329 A1) (hereafter “Murakami”) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2008/0036373 A1) (hereafter “Itoh”) in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”).
Regarding claims 8-9: Murakami as modified by Itoh and So teaches all of the features with respect to claim 5, as described above.
Murakami as modified by Itoh and So does not teach that the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material has the structure of a compound of the current claim 9.
Hatakeyama teaches thermally activated delayed fluorescent materials for use as light emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0076]-[0077], [0161], and Example 1 of Table 1}.
Hatakeyama exemplifies the compound shown below {Example 1 of Table 1 where compound 1-1 is described in paragraph [0466]}.
PNG
media_image11.png
464
896
media_image11.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 further modified the device taught by Murakami by using the compound of Hatakeyama shown above as the thermally activated delayed fluorescent material, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. 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 Hatakeyama’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the compounds of Hatakeyama exemplified in device examples), 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights