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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 7-9, and 18 are amended and claims 6, 11, and 16 are cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 11/18/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 16 and the rejections of claims 6, 11, and 16 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claims 6, 11, and 16 are cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 11/18/2025.
The objection to claim 5 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 11/18/2025.
The objection to claim 18 as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 11/18/2025.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language.
The rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo (English translation of KR 20160090780 A obtained from Google Patents) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of So (US 2014/0077172 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Adamovich (US 2007/0247061 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Ihn (US 2019/0305229 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of So and Chen (US 2018/0375036 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of So and Hatakeyama (US 2019/0058124 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of So and Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/18/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 19-29 of the reply dated 11/18/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On page 19, Applicant argues claim 18 has been amended to include clear graphics.
Examiner's response –The first seven compounds of claim 18 are still blurry and thus the objection to claim 18 has not been overcome.
Applicant's argument –On pages 20-21, Applicant argues claim 1 has been amended to further define the first host by Formula 301, 301-1, or 301-2, and the phosphorescent dopant by Formula 401. On page 22, Applicant argues that there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. On page 23, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art should readily understand how to obtain the HOMO of any hosts as well as any dopants. Given the above, Applicant argues the adequate description requirement is met.
Examiner's response – While claim 1 has been amended to further define the first host by Formula 301, 301-1, or 301-2 and the phosphorescent dopant by Formula 401, claim 1 does not further define the other dopant other than by being fluorescent. That is, claim 1 does not further define the fluorescent dopant by a specific structure or general formula. As the fluorescent dopant is so broadly defined, it may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds.
Additionally, the description only provides five devices including four specific examples of fluorescent dopants (v-DABNA, DF10, DF11, and DF12) and each of these dopants are boron-nitrogen condensed-cyclic compounds (see structures on instant pages 77-78). No other examples are provided which encompass the full scope of a fluorescent dopant.
While the instant specification recites the fluorescent dopant may be represented by Formula 501 or any of Compounds DF1 to DF12 (instant ¶ [00167] and [0180]), the limited examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
For this reason, the written description rejection is maintained.
Applicant's argument –On pages 24-29, Applicant argues the previously cited art Heo fails to read on the claims as amended which require a co-deposited mixture of a first host, a first dopant, and a second dopant.
Examiner's response –While the previously cited reference Heo fails to read on the claims as amended, the newly cited reference Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) anticipates the newly amended claim 1 in Example 1 which includes a co-deposited mixture of a first host, a first dopant, and a second dopant, as described in greater detail in the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The first seven compound structures of claim 18 are blurry.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 require an emission layer comprising a first host (H1), a first dopant (D1), and a second dopant (D2) that satisfy the following:
|HOMO_D1| < |HOMO_D2| and HOMO_H1 – HOMO_D1 < 0.3 eV; or
|HOMO_D2| < |HOMO_D1| and HOMO_H1 – HOMO_D2 < 0.3 eV.
Claim 1 further requires one selected from the first dopant and the second is a phosphorescent dopant and the other is a fluorescent dopant. Claim 1 defines the first host as a compound represented by Formula 301, 301-1, or 301-2 and the phosphorescent dopant as a compound represented by Formula 401. However, claim 1 does not further define the fluorescent dopant by a specific structure or general formula. Thus, as the fluorescent dopant is so broadly defined, it may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds.
The instant specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on first dopants and second dopants that might be useable for each claimed limitation. The instant description recites the first and second dopant may include a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant, and the fluorescent dopant may be a thermally activated delayed fluorescent dopant, wherein the fluorescent dopant may be represented by Formula 501 (instant ¶ [0034], [0039], [00148], [00167]). The instant specification recites specific examples of the fluorescent dopant in ¶ [00174], and specific examples of the delayed fluorescence material in ¶ [00180]). However, the instant specification provides no further description of which combination of first hosts, first dopants, and second dopants might meet the claimed HOMO relationships.
The description only provides five examples of devices that satisfy the claimed HOMO relationships, and in these devices, only four examples of a fluorescent dopant are provided (see Examples 1-5 in Table 2 on pgs. 81-82). The limited examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
Claim 8 recites “a percentage of the first dopant or the second dopant that causes energy transfer is greater than a percentage of that dopant that emits light”. The instant specification recites about 20% to about 30% of the phosphorescent dopant, which is the first dopant, may emit light, and about 80% to about 70% of the phosphorescent dopant may cause energy transfer (instant ¶ [0038]). However, the instant specification does not provide support for the full scope of “a percentage of the first dopant or the second dopant that causes energy transfer is greater than a percentage of that dopant that emits light”, as this allows for “the first dopant or second dopant” to also be the fluorescent dopant and this allows the percentage to be outside the scope of the percentages recited in instant ¶ [0038]. For this reason, claim 8 is considered to have new matter.
Similarly, claim 9 recites “a percentage of the phosphorescent dopant that causes energy transfer is greater than a percentage of the phosphorescent dopant that emits light”. The instant specification recites about 20% to about 30% of the phosphorescent dopant, which is the first dopant, may emit light, and about 80% to about 70% of the phosphorescent dopant may cause energy transfer (instant ¶ [0038]). However, the instant specification does not provide support for the full scope of “a percentage of the phosphorescent dopant that causes energy transfer is greater than a percentage of the phosphorescent dopant that emits light”, as this allows the percentage to be outside the scope of the percentages recites in instant ¶ [0038]. For this reason, claim 9 is considered to have new matter.
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 8-9 and 17-18 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 8 recites “a percentage of the first dopant or the second dopant that causes energy transfer is greater than a percentage of that dopant that emits light”. It is unclear whether the terms “the first dopant or the second dopant” and “that dopant” are referring to the same dopant performing two separate functions (i.e., energy transfer and emitting light) or whether this limitation is requiring two separate dopants performing two separate functions (i.e., one dopant causes energy transfer and the other dopant emits light). For purposes of examination, the terms “the first dopant or the second dopant” and “that dopant” will be interpreted as either the same dopant or two separate dopants.
Similarly in claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by “a percentage”. The “percentage” may be referring to any number of different measurements. For example, this phrase may be referring to the percentage of dopant present in the emission layer or the percentage of light emitted from a dopant. For purposes of examination, “the percentage” will be interpreted as with respect to any measured percentage.
Additionally, as claim 1 (of which claim 8 is dependent upon) does not recite that one of the dopants causes energy transfer and one of the dopants emits light, there is insufficient antecedent basis in claim 8 for “the first dopant or the second dopant that causes energy transfer” and “that dopant that emits light”.
Claim 9 recites “a percentage of the phosphorescent dopant that causes energy transfer is greater than a percentage of the phosphorescent dopant that emits light”. It is unclear whether the terms “the phosphorescent dopant that causes energy transfer” and “the phosphorescent dopant that emits light” are referring to the same phosphorescent dopant performing two separate functions (i.e., energy transfer and emitting light) or whether this limitation is requiring two separate phosphorescent dopants performing two separate functions (i.e., one dopant causes energy transfer and the other dopant emits light). For purposes of examination, the terms “the phosphorescent dopant that causes energy transfer” and “the phosphorescent dopant that emits light” will be interpreted as either the same phosphorescent dopant or two separate phosphorescent dopants.
Similarly in claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by “a percentage”. The “percentage” may be referring to any number of different measurements. For example, this phrase may be referring to the percentage of dopant present in the emission layer or the percentage of light emitted from a dopant. For purposes of examination, “the percentage” will be interpreted as with respect to any measured percentage.
Additionally, as claim 1 (of which claim 9 is dependent upon) does not recite a phosphorescent dopant that causes energy transfer and a phosphorescent dopant that emits light, there is insufficient antecedent basis in claim 9 for “the phosphorescent dopant that causes energy transfer” and “the phosphorescent dopant that emits light”.
Claims 17-18 are dependent upon cancelled claim 6. Thus, it is unclear which claim(s) claims 17-18 are dependent upon. For purposes of examination, claims 17-18 will be interpreted as being dependent upon claim 1, as the amended claim 1 incorporates the limitations of cancelled claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1), supporting evidence provided by Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2026; DCJTB, Ossila, 2026; and US 2012/0056169 A1.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-13, and 19, Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device having high external quantum efficiency and improved roll-off characteristic by including an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant, wherein the host is an exciplex host which is a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host, and the dopant includes both a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant (abstract; ¶ [0003]). Kim teaches examples of such devices including Example 1 which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the emission layer is formed by co-depositing TCTA:B4PYMPM:Ir(ppy)3:DCJTB (¶ [0083]) (claims 3-4).
Ir(ppy)3 (first dopant that is a phosphorescent dopant) has a HOMO of -5.6 eV1 and DCJTB (second dopant that is a fluorescent dopant) has a HOMO of -5.4 eV2. Accordingly, the claimed limitation of |HOMO_D2|< |HOMO_D1|is satisfied. Additionally, a difference between the HOMO of Ir(ppy)3 and DCJTB being 0.3 eV or less is satisfied (claim 2).
TCTA (first host) has a HOMO of -5.33 eV3. Accordingly, TCTA and DCJTB satisfy wherein a difference between HOMO_H1 and HOMO_D2 is 0.3 eV or less. Additionally, Kim teaches TCTA is a hole transporting host and thus is capable of transporting holes (¶ [0051]).
TCTA is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 301-1 (see structure on pg. 4).
TCTA:
PNG
media_image1.png
280
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
301-1:
PNG
media_image2.png
179
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
TCTA reads on the claimed Formula 301-1 wherein:
Ring A301 and A302 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group;
L301 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group;
xb22 and xb23 are each 0;
R301 is -N(Q301)(Q302);
Q301 and Q302 are each a combination of a C6 carbocyclic group and a C12 heterocyclic group; and
xb2, xb3, L302, L303, R302, and R303 are not required to be present.
Ir(ppy)34 is reproduced in comparison to the claimed Formula 401 and 402.
Ir(ppy)3:
PNG
media_image3.png
284
249
media_image3.png
Greyscale
402:
PNG
media_image4.png
228
271
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ir(ppy)3 reads on the claimed Formula 401 M(L401)xc1(L402)xc2 wherein:
M is a transition metal;
L401 is a ligand represented by Formula 402;
xc1 is 3 and xc2 is 0;
L402 is not required to be present;
X401 is nitrogen and X402 is carbon;
Ring A401 is a C5 heterocyclic group and ring A402 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
T401 is a chemical bond;
X403 and X404 are each a chemical bond;
R401 and R402 are each hydrogen; and
xc11 and xc12 are each 4.
DCJTB emits delayed fluorescence (¶ [0077]) (claim 7).
The ratio of Ir(ppy)3 to DCJTB is 2:0.5 (¶ [0083]) (claim 10). Energy transfer occurs from Ir(ppy)3 to DCJTB (¶ [0079]), and thus the limitation of claim 8 is satisfied. Additionally, as energy transfer occurs from Ir(ppy)3 to DCJTB, Ir(ppy)3 contributes more to energy transfer than light emission. Thus the limitation of claim 9 is satisfied
B4PYMPM (second host) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 301 (pg. 6).
B4PYMPM:
PNG
media_image5.png
194
310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
301:
PNG
media_image6.png
26
231
media_image6.png
Greyscale
B4PYMPM reads on the claimed Formula 301 (claim 12) wherein:
A301 is a C4 heterocyclic group substituted with one R10a;
L301 is a C6 carbocyclic group substituted with one R10a;
xb11 is 1;
xb1 is 1;
R301 is an unsubstituted C5 heterocyclic group;
xb21 is 2; and
R10a of A301 is a C1 alkyl group and R10a of L301 is a C5 heterocyclic group.
The weight ratio of TCTA to B4PYMPM is 1:1 (¶ [0083]) (claim 13).
Regarding claim 19, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 19 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or compounds within the device. Kim teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Kim according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ihn (US 2019/0305229 A1), supporting evidence provided by US 2023/0075211 A1.
Regarding claims 14-15, Kim teaches the device of Example 1 which includes an emission layer comprising hosts of TCTA and B4PYMPM, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12.
The device of Kim’s Example 1 fails to include the claimed host compounds. However, Kim does teach the hole transporting host may include mCBP and the electron transporting host is not limited to the exemplified compounds (¶ [0051]-[0052]).
Ihn teaches an organic light-emitting device having a low driving voltage, high emission efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan by including an emission layer comprising a composition including a donor compound and an acceptor compound which form an exciplex (abstract; ¶ [0006] and [0196]). The composition may further include a dopants (¶ [0189]). Ihn teaches examples of the donor compound include Compound D1 (i.e., mCBP) and examples of the acceptor compound include Compound A3 (pgs. 24 and 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute TCTA and B4PYMPM with donor and acceptor compounds taught by Ihn, based on the teaching of Ihn. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with low driving voltage, high emission efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan, as taught by Ihn.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Compound D1 as the donor compound and Compound A3 as the acceptor compound, because Kim teaches the hole transporting host may include mCBP and the electron transporting host is not limited to the exemplified compounds, and because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified donor and acceptor compound taught by Ihn, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compounds useful as the hosts in the emission layer of the device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Ihn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising donor and acceptor compounds having the benefits taught by Ihn in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound D1 is reproduced below is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 301. Additionally, Compound D1 is identical to the claimed HT-03 (claim 14) and has the same structure of mCBP (see Kim, page 4). Kim teaches mCBP is a hole transporting host (¶ [0051]).
D1:
PNG
media_image7.png
135
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
301:
PNG
media_image6.png
26
231
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Compound D1 reads on the claimed Formula 301 wherein:
A301 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group;
L301 is not required to be present;
xb11 is 2;
xb1 is 0;
R301 is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group; and
xb21 is 2.
Additionally, as shown on instant page 100, Compound D1 is identical to the instant compound 100 which has a HOMO of -5.55 eV. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112. As discussed above, DCJTB (second dopant) has a HOMO of -5.4 eV5. Accordingly, Compound D1 and DCJTB satisfy the limitation wherein a difference between HOMO_H1 and HOMO_D2 is 0.3 eV or less.
Compound A3 is reproduced below in comparison the claimed Formula 301. Additionally, Compound A3 is identical to the claimed ET-02 (claim 15) and has the same structure of mCBP-2CN, which is an electron-transporting host6.
A3:
PNG
media_image8.png
231
304
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2019/0119312 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Kim teaches the device of Example 1 which includes an emission layer comprising the dopant Ir(ppy)3, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Ir(ppy)3 fails to read on one of the claimed phosphorescent dopants. However, Kim does not limit the phosphorescent dopant to exemplified compounds (¶ [0061]).
Chen teaches phosphorescent platinum compounds having the Formula I, wherein the compounds have tunable physical properties such as sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and wherein the compounds are used in OLEDs (¶ [0015]-[0016]). Chen teaches examples of such devices including the device comprising Compound 1239509397 (Table 1 on pg. 120; and Table 2 on pg. 123). Chen’s devices comprising the platinum compounds having the Formula I obtain lower voltage and higher efficiency (¶ [0239]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Ir(ppy)3 with a compound of Chen’s Formula I, based on the teaching of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound having tunable physical properties and to provide a device with lower voltage and higher efficiency, as taught by Chen.
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Compound 1239509397, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Formula I and taught by Chen, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the phosphorescent dopant in the emission layer of the device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Chen’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Chen in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 1239509397is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formulas 401 and 402, and is identical to the claimed PD38 (claim 17).
1239509397:
PNG
media_image9.png
229
243
media_image9.png
Greyscale
402:
PNG
media_image4.png
228
271
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 1239509397 reads on the claimed Formula 401 M(L402)xc1(L402)xc2 wherein:
M is a transition metal;
L401 is a ligand represented by Formula 402;
xc1 is 1 and xc2 is 1;
L402 is an organic ligand;
X401 and X402 are each carbon;
Ring A401 is an unsubstituted C7 heterocyclic group;
T401 is a chemical bond;
X403 and X404 are each a chemical bond;
R401 is a substituted C6 carbocyclic group, and R402 is hydrogen; and
xc11 is 1 and xc12 is 3.
As discussed above, Compound 1239509397 is identical to the instant compound PD38 which has a HOMO of -5.24 eV. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Thus, in the modified Example 1 of Kim in view of Chen, Compound 1239509397 (first dopant) has a HOMO of -5.24 eV and DCJTB (second dopant) has a HOMO of -5.4 eV. Accordingly, the claimed limitation of |HOMO_D1|< |HOMO_D2|is satisfied.
TCTA (first host) has a HOMO of -5.33 eV7. Accordingly, TCTA and Compound 1239509397 satisfy wherein a difference between HOMO_H1 and HOMO_D1 is 0.3 eV or less.
As shown in Table 2 of Chen, a device comprising Compound 1239509397 emits with a maximum wavelength of 462 nm, which is blue light (pg. 123; ¶ [0236] and [0239]). Accordingly, the device of the modified Example 1 containing Compound 1239509397 emits blue light (claim 5).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US 2019/0058124 A1), supporting evidence provided by US 2020/0185632 A1.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Kim teaches the device of Example 1 which includes an emission layer comprising the dopant DCJTB, as described above with respect to claim 1.
DCJTB fails to read on a claimed fluorescent dopant. However, Kim does not limit the fluorescent dopant to exemplified compounds (¶ [0062]).
Hatakeyama teaches an excellent and highly efficient delayed fluorescence organic EL element by including a light emitting layer comprising a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0001] and [0016]-[0019]). Hatakeyama teaches examples of such devices including Example 1 comprising compound (1-401) (structure on pg. 106; Table 1 on pg. 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute DCJTB with a compound of Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) , specifically compound (1-401) as shown in Example 1, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an excellent and highly efficient device, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Compound (1-401) is identical to the claimed DF8(DABNA-1) (claim 18).
DF8(DABNA-1) has a HOMO of -5.5 eV8. Thus, in the modified Example 1 of Kim in view of Hatakeyama, Ir(ppy)3 (first dopant) has a HOMO of -5.6 eV9 and DF8(DABNA-1) (second dopant) has a HOMO of -5.5 eV. Accordingly, the claimed limitation of |HOMO_D2|< |HOMO_D1|is satisfied.
TCTA (first host) has a HOMO of -5.33 eV10. Accordingly, TCTA and DF8(DABNA-1) satisfy wherein a difference between HOMO_H1 and HOMO_D2 is 0.3 eV or less.
As shown in Table 2 of Hatakeyama, a device comprising DF8(DABNA-1) emits blue light with a wavelength of 461 nm (pg. 111; ¶ [0361]). Accordingly, the device of the modified Example 1 containing DF8(DABNA-1) emits blue light (claim 5).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the device of Example 1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim is silent as to the electronic apparatus further comprising a thin-film transistor.
Jeong teaches a light emitting display device including a thin film transistor (TNT) and a light emitting diode, wherein the TNT includes an N-type oxide semiconductor layer, a source electrode, and a drain electrode (abstract and col. 2 lines 64-67). Jeong teaches the cathode electrode of the OLED may electrically contact the drain electrode of the TFT (col. 6, lines 54-58). As the cathode is electrically connected to the anode, the anode would also be electrically connected to the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches the light emitting display including the TNT substantially overcomes one or more of the problems of the related art, which includes low mobility of the semiconductor layer, leakage current, and increased contact resistance (col. 1, 12-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the OLED of Kim as the OLED of the light emitting display device of Jeong, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
1 Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2026. See page 2.
2 DCJTB, Ossila, 2026. See page 2.
3 US 2012/0056169 A1. See ¶ [0120].
4 Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2026. See page 1.
5 DCJTB, Ossila, 2026. See page 2.
6 US 2023/0075211 A1. See ¶ [0286] and structure on pg. 470.
7 US 2012/0056169 A1. See ¶ [0120].
8 US 2020/0185632 A1. See structure of B-1 and HOMO of B-1 in Table 1 and page 23.
9 Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2026. See page 2.
10 US 2012/0056169 A1. See ¶ [0120].