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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 02/18/2026, which amends claims 1 and 5-9. Claims 1-26 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 02/18/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-15 and 26 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (KR 101953175 B1) and Hong et al. (KR 2020/0112730 A) and further in view of Hamada et al. (US 2005/0079381 A1), and of claims 16-25 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (KR 101953175 B1) and Hong et al. (KR 2020/0112730 A) and Hamada et al. (US 2005/0079381 A1) above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0185633 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The syntax of the definition of claims R3 through R5 is confusing because it appears to be missing the preposition “of”. See the excerpt below.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the following limitation.
PNG
media_image2.png
90
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aromatic group or the unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aromatic group" in the claim. These substituents do not appear to be required by the claim so it is not clear which aromatic or heteroaromatic group(s) these limitations are meant to apply to.
Similarly, the limitation “wherein at least one of R35 and R36 is unsubstituted or substituted C1-C20 alkyl” is unclear because it can be interpreted in at least two ways.
In the first interpretation, the claim is missing the word “an” between “is” and “unsubstituted”, in which case, at least one of R35 and R36 must bear a substituent.
In the second interpretation, the claim is missing the words “with a” between “substituted” and “C1-C20 alkyl”, in which case, R35 and R36 can both be unsubstituted.
Also with respect to claim 1, variables R35 and R36 are modified by groups “v” and “w”, which may be simultaneously selected as 0. In the case that both “v” and “w” are selected as 0, it is unclear how the requirement for at least one of R35 and R36 to be a substituent can be satisfied.
In order to address all of the above simultaneously, in continuing examination, the claim amendment is being interpreted as, “--and wherein at least one of R35 [[and R36]] is an unsubstituted or substituted C1-C20 alkyl, an [[the]] unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aromatic group or an [[the]] unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aromatic group;--
–[[each of]] v [[and w]]is [[independently]] an integer of 1[[0]] to 4, and w is an integer of 0 to 4.”.
With respect to claim 8, the same remarks apply as discussed above regarding claim 1.
In order to address all of the above simultaneously, in continuing examination, the claim amendment is being interpreted as, “--and wherein at least one of R45 [[and R46]] is an unsubstituted or substituted C1-C20 alkyl, an [[the]] unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aromatic group or an [[the]] unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aromatic group;--
–[[each of]] v [[and w]]is [[independently]] an integer of 1[[0]] to 4, and w is an integer of 0 to 4.”.
Claims 2-7 and 9-26 as rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (KR 101953175 B1, herein after referred to as Hong 2019) and Hong et al. (KR 20200112730 A, herein after referred to as Hong 2020), and further in view of Begley et al. (US 2005/0095451 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hong 2019 discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an emissive layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0023) including a compound of chemical formula 1, such as Compound 252 (page 65 of the untranslated document), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
168
170
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Hong 2019 formula 3, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
490
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hong 2019 also teaches that p is 1(paragraph 0019) and L is a substituted arylene (paragraph 0013), such as phenylene (paragraphs 0050 and 0042, line 5), and examples of substituents include a nitrile group (paragraph 0028, line 3).
Hong 2019 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hong 2019 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound, which when used in an organic light emitting device, results in significantly improved operating voltage, lifespan, and efficiency (paragraph 0192), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when R1 and R2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aromatic (phenyl) group, n is 0 and R3 is not present, m is 1, p is 2 and two of R4 are joined to form a substituted C6 heteroaromatic (benzofuran) group, q is 0 and R5 is not present, and X is a single bond.
However, Hong 2019 does not fairly suggest selection of a cyano-substituted phenylene linking group at L.
In analogous art, Hong 2020 teaches a compound wherein a triazine moiety is connected to a 5-ring carbazole derivative through a cyano-substituted phenylene linking group.
Hong 2020 teaches that when one or more nitrile groups are bonded to the phenyl group bonded to N of carbazole, the wavelength shifts to the long wavelength region, increasing the electron acceptor role of the compound. Therefore, the triplet exciton lifetime is shortened and the RISC rate constant is increased, which results in a reduction in triplet-triplet annihilation or triplet-polaron annihilation, which adversely affects the device lifetime, thereby improving the device lifetime (paragraph 0176).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cyano-substituted phenylene linker in the compound of Hong 2019 in order to shift the wavelength to the long wavelength region, and increase the electron acceptor role of the compound, thereby improving the device lifetime, as taught by Hong 2020.
However, neither Hong 2019 nor Hong 2020 teach that the light emitting layer further comprises a second compound according to instant Formula 5.
In analogous art, Begley teaches a light emitting layer containing a host and a dopant wherein the emitter is an orange-red light emitting rubrene derivative (abstract) which emits from an excited state to afford a bright, highly-efficient, stable EL device (paragraph 0051).
Begley gives an example of the inventive rubrene derivative in compound (Inv-1) (paragraph 0053), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
626
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 5 when Ar1 through Ar4 are each a C6 aromatic (phenylene) group, R31 through R36 are a C4 alkyl (t-butyl), and r, s, t, u, v, and w are 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubrene derivative of Begley in the light emitting layer of Hong 2019 in order to afford a bright, highly-efficient, stable EL device (paragraph 0051), as taught by Begley.
With respect to claim 2, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 1-7) and 43 (compound 2-71) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley read on the claims.
Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley are silent to the LUMO energy levels of the first and second compound being able to satisfy the relationship in Equation (1). However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as materials in the emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 3, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 1-7) and 43 (compound 2-71) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley read on the claims.
Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley are silent to the HOMO energy level of the first and second compound being able to satisfy the relationship set forth in Equation (2). However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as materials in the emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 4, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the first compound pictured and discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 25 (compound 1-7) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hong 2019 and Hong 2020 reads on the claims.
Hong 2019 and Hong 2020 are silent to the energy bandgap of the compound being able to satisfy the equation set forth in Equation (3). However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the indolocarbazole compound is used as a material in the emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hong 2019 and Hong 2020, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hong 2019 and Hong 2020 were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 5, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, and the first compound has the structure of Formula 2 when j and k are 0 and R11 and R12 are not present, n is 0 and R3 is not present, m is 1, p is 2 and two of R4 are joined to form a substituted C6 heteroaromatic (benzofuran) group, q is 0 and R5 is not present, and X is a single bond, as pictured and discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, and the first compound has the structure of Formula 3 when j and k are 0 and R11 and R12 are not present, n is 0 and R13 is not present, m is 1, and R14 through R17 are hydrogen atoms, R21 and R22 are hydrogen atoms, and R23 and R24 are joined to form a substituted C6 heteroaromatic (benzofuran) group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, and the first compound is instant compound 1-7.
With respect to claim 8, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, and the second compound has the structure of Formula 6 when R41 through R46 are a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) group, r, s, t, and u are 1, and v and w are 0 so that R45 and R46 are not present.
With respect to claim 9, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, and the second compound is instant compound 2-70.
With respect to claim 10, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, and Hong 2019 teaches that the light-emitting layer is a single layered emitting layer (paragraph 0194).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed device structure, as taught by Hong 2019.
With respect to claim 11, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 10, and Hong 2019 also teaches that the emission layer may further comprise a third compound (a host compound, paragraph 0221).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a host compound as a third compound in the emitting layer of Hong 2019, as taught by Hong 2019.
With respect to claim 12, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 11, as discussed above.
However, Hong 2019 does not teach the host material is a compound of Formula 8.
Hong 2020 gives an example of a suitable host material to use in the emitting layer (paragraph 0366) such as m-CBP (paragraph 0366 and page 36).
PNG
media_image6.png
260
340
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 8 when a and b are each 4 and R51 and R52 are hydrogen atoms, f and g are 1 and L1 and L2 are each a C6 arylene (phenylene), and R53 is an unsubstituted 9-carbazolyl group, as pictured above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host material of Hong 2020 as a host material in the device of Hong 2019, as Hong 2020 teaches this is a suitable host material for use in the emissive layer of an organic light emitting diode.
With respect to claim 13, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 12, and the third compound has the structure of Formula 9A when d and e are 0 and R54 and R55 are not present, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 14, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 11, and the third compound is instant compound 3-1.
With respect to claim 15, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 11, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 1-7), 43 (compound 2-71), and 51 (compound 3-1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley read on the claims.
Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley are silent to the excited triplet exciton energy level of the first, second, and third compound and the excited singlet exciton energy of the first, second, and third compounds satisfying the relationship set forth in the instant claim. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as materials in the emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 26, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, and Hong 2019 also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a substrate and the diode is disposed on the substrate (paragraph 0211).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed device structure, as taught by Hong 2019.
Claim 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (KR 101953175 B1, herein after referred to as Hong 2019) and Hong et al. (KR 20200112730 A, herein after referred to as Hong 2020), and further in view of Begley et al. US 2005/0095451 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0185633 A1, herein after referred to as Hong US2020).
With respect to claim 16, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above. However, neither Hong 2019, Hong 2020, nor Begley teach a first emitting material layer including the first compound and a second emitting material layer comprising the second compound.
In analogous art, Hong US2020 discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), an emissive layer between the electrodes including at least one light emitting material, and the at least one light emitting material is a delayed fluorescent dopant.
Hong US2020 also teaches another embodiment of the diode wherein there is a first emitting part and a second emitting part separated by a charge generation layer (paragraph 0083) and the first emission layer includes the first compound (the delayed fluorescent dopant) (paragraph 0087).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed device structure as Hong US 2020 teaches by way of example, that it was known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first emissive material of Hong 2019 in the first emitting layer of a dual emitting layer device.
However, neither Hong 2019, Hong 2020, nor Hong US2020 teaches that the second emitting material layer comprises the second compound.
Begley teaches a light emitting layer containing the rubrene emitter above emits from an excited state to afford a bright, highly-efficient, stable EL device (paragraph 0051).
Given the teachings of Begley, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the rubrene derivative above into one or both emitting layers of a dual light emitting layer device in order to afford a bright, highly-efficient, stable EL device, particularly as Hong US2020 teaches that the second emitting material layer comprises a light emitting dopant (paragraph 0092).
Such a modification produces a diode that meets the requirements of the instant claim when the second emitting material layer includes the second compound.
With respect to claim 17, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 teach the diode of claim 16, and Hong US2020 also teaches that the first emitting layer may comprise a third compound, such as a host compound (paragraph 0090), and that the second emitting layer may comprise a fourth compound, such as a host compound (paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed device structure, as taught by Hong US2020.
With respect to claim 18, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 teach the diode of claim 17, as discussed above.
Hong 2020 gives an example of a suitable host material to use in the emitting layer (paragraph 0366) such as m-CBP (paragraph 0366 and page 36).
PNG
media_image6.png
260
340
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 8 when a and b are each 4 and R51 and R52 are hydrogen atoms, f and g are 1 and L1 and L2 are each a C6 arylene (phenylene), and R53 is an unsubstituted 9-carbazolyl group, as pictured above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host material of Hong 2020 as a host material in the device of Hong 2019, as Hong 2020 teaches this is a suitable host material for use in the emissive layer of an organic light emitting diode.
With respect to claim 19, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 teach the diode of claim 18, and the third compound has the structure of Formula 9A when d and e are 0 and R54 and R55 are not present, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 20, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 teach the diode of claim 17, and the third compound is instant compound 3-1.
With respect to claim 21, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 teach the diode of claim 17, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 1-7), 43 (compound 2-71), and 51 (compound 3-1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 read on the claims.
Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 are silent to the excited triplet exciton energy level of the first, second, and third compound and the excited singlet exciton energy of the first, second, and third compounds satisfying the relationship set forth in the instant claim. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as materials in the emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 22, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 teach the diode of claim 16, and Hong US2020 further teaches a third emitting layer disposed oppositely to the second emitting layer with respect to the first emitting layer (paragraph 0135 and Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed device structure, as taught by Hong US2020.
With respect to claim 23, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 teach the diode of claim 22, as discussed above.
Hong US2020 further teaches that the third emitting layer includes a fifth and sixth compound (a host and a dopant respectively, paragraph 0150).
However, neither Hong 2019, Hong 2020, nor Hong US2020 teach that the fifth compound has a structure of Formula 5.
Given the teachings of Begley, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the light-emission assisting rubrene derivative any of the emitting layers of Hong US2020 in order to afford a bright, highly-efficient, stable EL device, particularly as Hong US2020 teaches that the second emitting material layer comprises a light emitting dopant (paragraph 0171).
Such a modification produces a diode that meets the requirements of the instant claim when the second emitting material layer includes the second compound.
With respect to claim 24, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, nor Hong US2020 teach the diode of claim 23, as discussed above.
However, while it is well known in the art of organic chemistry that energy transfer in OLED devices takes place from the highest energy to the lowest energy and the singlet energy of the sixth compound is necessarily higher than the fifth compound (Begley teaches the rubrene derivative (fifth compound) receives energy from the host (sixth compound) (paragraph 0051)), neither Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, nor Hong US2020 explicitly make this statement.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 25 (compound 1-7), 43 (compound 2-71), and 51 (compound 3-1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hong US2020, Hong KR2019, and Begley read on the claims.
Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 are silent to the excited triplet exciton energy level of the first, second, and third compound and the excited singlet exciton energy of the first, second, and third compounds satisfying the relationship set forth in the instant claim. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as materials in the emitting layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hong 2019, Hong 2020, Begley, and Hong US2020 was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 25, Hong 2019, Hong 2020, and Begley teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above. However, neither Hong 2019, Hong 2020, nor Begley teach a first emitting material layer and a second emitting material layer separated by a charge generation layer.
In analogous art, Hong US2020 discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), an emissive layer between the electrodes including at least one light emitting material.
Hong US2020 also teaches another embodiment of the diode wherein there is a first emitting part and a second emitting part separated by a charge generation layer (paragraph 0083).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed device structure, as Hong US2020 demonstrates by way of example that this was a device structure known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786