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 reply filed 6 April 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 17-18, and 21-26 have been amended.
Claims 1-28 are pending.
The amendments to the specification have been entered. The amendments to the specification have overcome the objections to the specification set forth in the last Office action. The objections have been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 3, 8-10, 17-18, and 21-26 have been entered. The amendments overcome the objections set forth in the last Office action. The objections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200235303 A1) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200235303 A1), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (US 2012/0302753 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, the content of the previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200235303 A1) set forth in the last Office action has been incorporated into these rejections.
The amendment to claim 17 has overcome the rejections of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) set forth in the last Office action; as well as the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made. It is noted that claim 17 has been amended to include the limitation that “at least one of R4 or R8 is a group represented by Formula 2”, which was not previously in claim 17 or any of the claims that depend from claim 17. Thus, the rejection outlined below is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200235303 A1) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200235303 A1), and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (US 2012/0302753 A1) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, the content of the previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200235303 A1) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejections based upon structural similarity are in error, because the different bonding positions for the instant Formula 2 on the rings comprising the instant R1 to R8 would possess different properties. Applicant argues that any presumption of obviousness based upon structure similarity applies only where similar utilities/properties would reasonably be expected. Applicant further argues that the rejection fails to articulate why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the modification.
As described in the rejections set forth in the last Office action and as repeated below, the compounds of Geum have the structure of Formula 1 of Geum. Formula 1 of Geum is non-specific with respect to the specific positions of any substituent, including diarylamine. Thus, based upon Formula 1 of Geum, a position isomer of a compound having the diarylamine corresponding to the instant Formula 2 meta to the central boron atom of the compound of Geum in which the diarylamine corresponding to the instant Formula 2 is would be suitable for the purposes of Geum.
As stated in the rejections set forth in the last Office action and as repeated below, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds to be used in organic light emitting devices. This is the precise “why” of Example 1 of MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Applicant’s arguments that relying upon structural similarity in establishing obviousness is only applicable in other contexts is not found persuasive. Differentiation between dynamical properties and/or luminescent response (electrodynamic properties) from electrostatic properties does not appear anywhere in MPEP 2143 or MP2144 that could be located.
Applicant’s example of 3-pyridyl- and 2-pyridyl- carboxylates are illustrative of Applicant’s arguments. However, Applicant’s additional evidence must compare to the closest prior art, which Applicant’s example is not. See MPEP 716.02(e) with regard to the requirement of comparison to the closest prior art for new evidence.
Furthermore, to be of probative value, any objective evidence should be supported by actual proof. Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor.
However, it is noted that, although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky, 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962) (expert opinion that an application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 is not entitled to any weight; however, facts supporting a basis for deciding that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 are entitled to some weight); In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967) (Although an affiant’s or declarant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in the case, "some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him." 385 F.2d at 456, 155 USPQ at 524 (emphasis in original)).
In light of the above, absent additional evidence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to In re Oetiker, the asserted shortcomings of the rejections have been addressed above.
Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) set forth in the last Office action; as well as the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the rejection and that regioisomerism is required for the claims to be obvious over Geum in view of Kim and that said regioisomerism is nonobvious.
As outlined below, regioisomerism is not relied upon in the new grounds of rejection. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are moot with regard to the new grounds of rejection.
With respect to In re Oetiker, the asserted shortcomings of the rejections have been addressed above.
It is noted that claim 17 has been amended to include the limitation that “at least one of R4 or R8 is a group represented by Formula 2”, which was not previously in claim 17 or any of the claims that depend from claim 17. Thus, the rejection outlined below is necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 21-23, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/013996 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/013996 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent), and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2016/0268516 A1) (hereafter “Tanaka”) and Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that regioisomerism is required for the claims to be obvious over Rota Matir in view of Geum and that said regioisomerism is nonobvious. Applicant additionally argues that the PLQY/central wavelength/FWHM properties are also not inherent to the compounds resultant from the rejection, because the changing of the carbazolyl groups to a position para to the central boron atom would change the properties of the compound.
As outlined below, regioisomerism is not relied upon in the rejection. The carbazolyl groups are para to the central boron atom in the compounds of Rota Matir without modification. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, claims 2, 27, and 28 are rejected on the basis of an inherency argument. No modification is made to the compounds in the explanation of rejection specific to claims 2, 27, and 28. Thus, the arguments with respect to KSR and impermissible hindsight are moot. While these arguments may or may not be applicable to the rejection of claim 1over Rota Matir in view of Geum—and the arguments with respect to claim 1 are addressed above—they are not relevant to claims 2, 27, and 28 specifically. Reliance upon Applicant’s data is not improper hindsight. Rather, it is evidence on the record that can show inherency. Indeed, in the instant case, it is evidence that the resultant compounds of the rejection would possess the claimed properties. Evidence need not come from either Rota Matir or Geum for the inherency argument to be correct. The resultant compounds are similar to the instant 4, 26, 37, and 62 differ in ways that are inclusive of the Markush groups of the current claims and of the disclosure of Rota Matir. These groups would be expected to be similarly useful.
With respect to In re Oetiker, the asserted shortcomings of the rejections have been addressed above.
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, 3-7, 9, 21-22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200235303 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 21: Geum discloses the compounds shown below {(paragraph [0037]: The compounds of the disclosure of Geum have the structure of Formula 1.), (paragraph [0188]: The compounds having the structure of Formula 1 of Geum are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 13-40.), (pp. 29, 31, 32)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
832
988
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
816
798
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Geum does not teach a specific organic light-emitting device comprising one of the compounds shown above.
However, Geum teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0203]-[0210]}.
The emission layer comprises a host and a light emitting dopant {paragraph [0210]}.
The compound of the disclosure of Geum is useful as the light emitting dopant of the emission layer {paragraph [0210]}.
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 of the compounds shown above by using the compound in an organic light emitting device of Geum having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the mission layer, based on the teaching of Geum. 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.
Kim teaches a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The interlayer comprises an emission layer, a hole transport region between the emission layer and the first electrode, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The emission layer comprises a first host, a second host, and a dopant {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}. Where the first host and the second host are present at a ratio of 1:1 {paragraphs [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
The dopant is a condensed polycyclic compound having a similar structure to the compounds of Geum {paragraphs [0201] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}. The dopant of Geum has the structure that is encompassed by the structural formula of the light-emitting dopant of Kim {paragraph [0066]}.
The first host comprises a hole-transporting host having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0199] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image4.png
448
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The second host comprises an electron-transporting host having the structure shown below {paragraphs [0200] and [0395]-[0397] and Table 1: Example 9}.
PNG
media_image5.png
338
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that devices using the combination of materials taught by Kim possess high efficiency and long lifespan {paragraph [0403]}.
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 Geum by using the host materials of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. 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, which in this case means using the combination of materials taught by Kim in order to provide devices with high efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Kim.
Geum as modified by Kim does not exemplify a similar compound to one of the compounds of Geum described above except for having the amine substituent at the position as in the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3.
However, the only difference between the compounds of Geum described above and compounds having the structure of the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3 is the position of the amine substituent on the same benzene ring.
Therefore, the compounds of Geum described above are position isomers with similar compounds having the structure of the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3.
With respect to position isomers, the MPEP states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify one or more of the compounds of Geum shown above such that the amine substituent was in the position of the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3. A compound in which the amine substituent was in the position of the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3 would represent a position isomer of one compounds of Geum described above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds having each respective structure would act in similar manner. The selection of one of the compounds of Geum described above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified compounds of Geum), 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.
Regarding claims 4-5: Geum as modified by Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Geum as modified by Kim does not exemplify a specific device comprising a compound in which the instant Ar1 to Ar3 are each hydrogen and having the structure of one of the instant formulas 3-2 or 3-3.
However, as outlined above, Geum teaches the compound shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As outlined above, it would have been obvious to modify the compound shown above to meet the limitations of the current claim 1.
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 shown above by using the specific modified compound described above in an organic light emitting device of Geum having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the emission layer, based on the teaching of Geum. 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 5: Geum as modified by Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Geum as modified by Kim does not exemplify a specific device comprising a compound having the structure of one of the instant formulas 3-2 or 3-3.
However, as outlined above, Geum teaches the compound shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
816
798
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As outlined above, it would have been obvious to modify the compound shown above to meet the limitations of the current claim 1.
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 shown above by using the specific modified compound described above in an organic light emitting device of Geum having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the mission layer, based on the teaching of Geum. 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 6: Geum as modified by Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Geum as modified by Kim does not exemplify a specific device comprising a compound having the structure of one of the instant formulas 3-2 or 3-3.
However, as outlined above, Geum teaches the compound shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
832
988
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As outlined above, it would have been obvious to modify the compound shown above to meet the limitations of the current claim 1.
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 shown above by using the specific modified compound described above in an organic light emitting device of Geum having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the emission layer, based on the teaching of Geum. 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 7: Geum as modified by Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Geum as modified by Kim does not exemplify a specific device comprising a compound having the structure of one of the instant formulas 3-2 or 3-3.
However, as outlined above, Geum teaches the compound shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As outlined above, it would have been obvious to modify the compound shown above to meet the limitations of the current claim 1.
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 shown above by using the specific modified compound described above in an organic light emitting device of Geum having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the emission layer, based on the teaching of Geum. 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.
Geum as modified by Kim does not exemplify a similar compound the compound of Geum described above except for having a silyl substituent at the position of the instant Ar1.
However, Geum teaches that the compounds of Geum have the structure of Formula 1 of Geum, shown below {paragraphs [0012] and [0037]}.
PNG
media_image6.png
288
858
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where R1 can be silyl as an alternative to hydrogen {paragraphs [0015] and [0043]}. Thus, hydrogen and silyl were both known elements as R1 of Geum.
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 Geum shown above by substituting a silyl group in place of hydrogen at the position equivalent to the instant Ar1, based on the teaching of Geum. 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 silyl would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified substituent options for R1 of Geum), 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.
Regarding claim 9 and 24: Geum as modified by Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Geum as modified by Kim does not exemplify a specific device comprising a compound having the structure of one of the instant formulas 3-2 or 3-3.
However, as outlined above, Geum teaches the compound shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As outlined above, it would have been obvious to modify the compound shown above to meet the limitations of the current claim 1.
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 shown above by using the specific modified compound described above in an organic light emitting device of Geum having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the emission layer, based on the teaching of Geum. 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.
Geum as modified by Kim does not exemplify a similar compound the compound of Geum described above except for having a phenyl substituent at the position of the instant R7 or R8.
However, Geum teaches that the compounds of Geum can have the structure of Formula 2 of Geum, shown below {paragraphs [0077]-[0078]}.
PNG
media_image7.png
306
848
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where R11 can be phenyl as an alternative to hydrogen {paragraphs [0080] and [0058]}. Thus, phenyl and hydrogen were both known elements as R11 of Geum.
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 Geum shown above by substituting a phenyl group in place of hydrogen at the position equivalent to the instant R7 or R8, based on the teaching of Geum. 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 silyl would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified substituent options for R1 of Geum), 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.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200235303 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So et al. (US 2014/0077172 A1) (hereinafter “So”), and Li et al. (US 2012/0302753 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 14-16: Geum as modified by Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Geum as modified by Kim 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 Geum as modified by Kim 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.
Geum as modified by Kim and So do not exemplify a that the sensitizer has the structure of one of the compounds current claim 16.
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 {paragraph [0112]}. Li teaches that the compounds of Li are phosphorescent materials for use in organic electroluminescent devices {paragraphs [0090] and [0100]-[0101]}.
PNG
media_image8.png
440
386
media_image8.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 of Geum by using the compound of Li shown above as the phosphorescent sensitizer, based on the teaching of Li. 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) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 17-19: Geum discloses the compounds shown below {(paragraph [0037]: The compounds of the disclosure of Geum have the structure of Formula 1.), (paragraph [0188]: The compounds having the structure of Formula 1 of Geum are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 13-40.), (p. 34)}.
PNG
media_image9.png
908
1130
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Geum does not teach a specific organic light-emitting device comprising one of the compounds shown above.
However, Geum teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0203]-[0210]}.
The emission layer comprises a host and a light emitting dopant {paragraph [0210]}.
The compound of the disclosure of Geum is useful as the light emitting dopant of the emission layer {paragraph [0210]}.
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 of the compounds shown above by using the compound in an organic light emitting device of Geum having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the mission layer, based on the teaching of Geum. 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.
Geum does not exemplify a specific host for the device of Geum described above.
However, Geum teaches that the compound shown below can be used as the host material of the emission layer {paragraphs [0212] and [0240]}.
PNG
media_image10.png
412
340
media_image10.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 taught by Geum by using the host material of Geum described above, based on the teaching of Geum. 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 18: Geum teaches all of the features with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Geum does not exemplify a similar compound to one of the compounds of Geum described above except for having the amine substituent at the position as in the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3.
However, the only difference between the compounds of Geum described above and compounds having the structure of the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3 is the position of the amine substituent on the same benzene ring.
Therefore, the compounds of Geum described above are position isomers with similar compounds having the structure of the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3.
With respect to position isomers, the MPEP states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify one or more of the compounds of Geum shown above such that the amine substituent was in the position of the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3. A compound in which the amine substituent was in the position of the instant Formula 3-2 or the instant Formula 3-3 would represent a position isomer of one compounds of Geum described above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds having each respective structure would act in similar manner. The selection of one of the compounds of Geum described above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified compounds of Geum), 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.
Regarding claim 19: Geum teaches all of the features with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Geum teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the emission layer emits blue light. It is reasonable to presume that the emission layer emitting blue light is inherent to Geum. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
Geum teaches that the compounds of Geum preferably have a peak emission wavelength that is blue light {paragraph [0197]}.
Additionally, the compounds of Geum are similar to the compounds 1, 103, and C-2 described in Table 1 of the instant specification. Each compound has the same boron and nitrogen fused polycyclic moiety, one or more amine substituents and one or more terphenyl substituents on an amine N of the boron and nitrogen fused polycyclic moiety. Each of the listed compounds has a peak emission wavelength that is blue light. Thus, given the structural similarity of the compounds, the compound of Geum would emit blue light, and an emission layer comprising the compound of Geum as a light emitting dopant would emit blue light.
Finally, the claim merely requires that the emission layer emits blue light. Even emissions having a peak emission wavelength that is longer than the blue range would emit some light that is in the blue range.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Geum product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”).
Regarding claim 20: Geum teaches all of the features with respect to claim 17, as outlined above.
Geum does not teach that the organic electroluminescent device comprises a first sub-emission layer and a second sub-emission layer, stacked in a thickness direction.
Liao teaches a white light emitting organic light emitting device that comprises three organic layers, each comprising a stack of layers, between the first organic layer and the second electrode {Fig. 7 as described in paragraphs [0071]-[0072]}.
The light is emitted from the device in the direction form the first electrode to the second electrode {Fig. 7 as well as the description of Fig. 7 in paragraphs [0071]-[0072] indicates that the light is emitted through the anode and the substrate—which is being equated with the instant second electrode}.
Each organic layer is an individual stack of organic layers {(paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims.), (paragraph [0049] describes the generalized structure of a stacked structure of the disclosure of which Fig. 7 is a specific embodiment. Elements 220.1 to 220.N are the organic EL units and N is the number of organic EL units.), (paragraph [0054]: Each organic EL unit in the stacked OLED device can be the same and can comprise a multilayer structure.)}.
Each organic layer emits a different color light, one emitting blue light—the layer nearest the anode, one emitting green light—the middle layer, and one emitting red light—the layer nearest the cathode {paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims and emit blue light, green light, and red light, respectively.}.
Liao sought to provide an organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration {p. 5, ¶ [0070]}. A stacked organic light emitting device using Liao’s configuration further has high luminance efficiency, increased lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, and provides a stacked OLED with decreased optical absorption {p. 1, paragraphs [0009]-[0013]}. The stacked structure allows for white light generation at improved efficiency and operational lifetime {paragraph [0072]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting element of Geum by incorporating it into the stacked display unit of Liao by stacking two duplicate organic layer stacks (the organic EL elements of Liao) over the organic layer stack of Geum described above using the configuration of Liao where one organic layer emits blue light, one organic layer emits green light, and one organic layer emits red light, as taught by Liao. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device comprising a white light emitting organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration, as well as to provide a white light emitting organic light emitting device with high efficiency, and increased operational lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, decreased optical absorption as a result of the stacked configuration, as taught by Liao.
Each light-emitting layer can be equated with a sub-emission layer.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 21-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/013996 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 21-23 and 25-26: Rota Matir discloses the compound shown below {(p. 2, lines 3-4: The compounds of the disclosure of Rota Matir have the structure of Formula I of Rota Matir.), (p. 114, lines 1: Examples of the compound of the disclosure are shown on pp. 114-137.), (p. 116, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image11.png
762
800
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Rota Matir does not exemplify that the unsubstituted phenyl groups on the amine N atoms are substituted with two ortho bonded phenyl groups.
Geum teaches similar boron and nitrogen polycyclic compound that are useful as light-emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices {(paragraph [0037]: The compounds of the disclosure of Geum have the structure of Formula 1.), (paragraph [0188]: The compounds having the structure of Formula 1 of Geum are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 13-40.), (paragraph [0210]: The compounds are useful as the light-emitting dopants of the light-emitting layer)}.
Geum teaches that replacing an unsubstituted phenyl group on the amine N atom of the boron and nitrogen polycyclic compound (
PNG
media_image12.png
188
220
media_image12.png
Greyscale
) with a phenyl group comprising two ortho phenyl substituents (
PNG
media_image13.png
440
302
media_image13.png
Greyscale
) provides a greater separation from host materials which decreases Dexter energy transfers, leading to higher efficiency {Table 2 and paragraphs [0403]-[0404]: comparison of films comprising compounds BD-X and BD-B}. Geum teaches that the phenyl substituents on each of the amine N atoms of the boron and nitrogen polycyclic compound can be replaced with phenyl groups comprising two ortho phenyl substituents {(paragraph [0123]: Formula 1-3), (p. 28, 2nd compound of 2nd row)}.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Rota Matir by replacing each of the unsubstituted phenyl groups on the amine N atom of the boron and nitrogen polycyclic compound (
PNG
media_image12.png
188
220
media_image12.png
Greyscale
) with phenyl groups comprising two ortho phenyl substituents (
PNG
media_image13.png
440
302
media_image13.png
Greyscale
), based on the teaching of Geum. The motivation for doing so would have been to provides a greater separation from host materials which decreases Dexter energy transfers, leading to higher efficiency, as taught by Geum.
The resultant compound would have the structure of the instant compound 48.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10: Rota Matir as modified by Geum teaches all of the --features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above.
Claim 1 differs from claim 21 in that the compound of claim 21 is incorporated into an organic light emitting device.
Rota Matir does not teach a specific device comprising the compound shown above.
However, Rota Matir teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode {p. 66, line 28 through p. 67, line 12}.
The emission layer comprises a host and a light emitting dopant {p. 69, line 31 through p. 70, line 25}.
The compound of the disclosure of Rota Matir is useful as the light emitting dopant of the emission layer {p. 69, lines 31 to 34}.
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 of the compounds shown above by using the compound in an organic light emitting device of Rota Matir having the structure described above as the light emitting dopant of the mission 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.
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.
Rota Matir teaches that the emitting layer can comprise a multi-host system comprising mCBP (shown below left), which is a hole transporting host, and T2T, which is an electron transporting host (shown below right) {p. 70, 2nd paragraph}.
PNG
media_image14.png
292
500
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
240
240
media_image15.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 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 claims 2, 27, and 28: Rota Matir as modified by Geum teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 21, as outlined above.
Rota Matir as modified by Geum teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the compound has a PLQY equal to or greater than about 80%; the compound emits light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm; and that the compound emits light having a FWHM equal to or less than about 45 nm. It is reasonable to presume that the compound having a PLQY equal to or greater than about 80%; the compound emitting light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm; and that the compound emitting light having a FWHM equal to or less than about 45 nm is inherent to Rota Matir as modified by Geum. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The resultant compound of Rota Matir as modified by Geum has a structure similar to the instant Compounds 4, 26, 37, and 62. The compounds are similar in that they all comprise carbazolyl substituents at the same position of the boron and nitrogen fused polycyclic moiety, unsubstituted terphenyl substituents on the amine nitrogen atoms of the boron and nitrogen fused polycyclic moiety, and a phenyl substituent at the same position of the boron and nitrogen fused polycyclic moiety. The instant Compounds 4, 26, 37, and 62 each have a PLQY equal to or greater than about 80% and emit light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm {Table 1 of the instant specification}. With respect to the FWHM of Compounds 4, 26, 37, and 62 have full width quarter maximum (FWQM) values that are less than 45 nm {Table 1 of the instant specification}. Given the FWQM is measured at a quarter height of total amplitude, these example compounds would necessarily have a FWHM less than 45 nm, and given the structural similarity to the resultant compound of Rota Matir as modified by Geum as described above, so would the resultant compound of Rota Matir as modified by Geum.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Rota Matir as modified by Geum product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota Matir et al. (WO 2021/013996 A1) (hereafter “Rota Matir”) in view of Geum et al. (WO 2020/022770 A1—US 2021/0277026 A1 used as an English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2016/0268516 A1) (hereafter “Tanaka”) and Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 11-13: Rota Matir as modified by Geum teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Rota Matir does not teach that the hole transporting host has the structure of one of the compounds of the current claim 12.
Tanaka teaches that the compound shown below is a known host material for thermally activated delayed fluorescence materials in the emission layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0021]-[0027], [0196]-[0197], and [0221]—p. 40, compound H-206}.
PNG
media_image16.png
302
532
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The above compound is a hole transporting host material, because is comprises carbazole and dibenzofuran structures, similar to hole dominant host materials listed by Rota Matir {p. 70, 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 device of Rota Matir shown described above by using the host material of Tanaka as the hole transporting host material, based on the teaching of Tanaka and 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 electron transporting host has the structure of one of the compounds of the current claim 13.
Ahn teaches the compound shown below as a host material for the light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {(paragraph [0110]: The compounds of the disclosure of Lee are exemplified by the Compounds 1 through 59.), (p. 10, Compound 3)}.
PNG
media_image17.png
770
838
media_image17.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]}.
The above compound is an electron transporting host material, because is comprises triazine, similar to electron dominant host materials listed by Rota Matir {p. 70, 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 device of Rota Matir to use the compound of Ahn shown above as the electron transporting host material, based on the teaching of Ahn and Rota Matir. 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). 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.
Conclusion
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.
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