DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 9/2/2026.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 9/2/2026. In particular, the scope of original Claim 1 has been narrowed from that previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 29 recites the phrase “at least one compound selected from Compound 16 and Compound 17”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one compound selected from the group consisting of Compound 16 and Compound 17”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 recites the phrase “at least one compound selected from Compound 27, Compound 32, Compound 34, Compound 52, Compound 253, Compound 254 and Compound 255”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one compound selected from Compound 27, Compound 32, Compound 34, Compound 52, Compound 253, Compound 254 and Compound 255”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 31 recites the phrase “at least one compound selected from Compound 16 and Compound 17”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one compound selected from the group consisting of Compound 16 and Compound 17”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 32 recites the phrase “at least one compound selected from Compound 27, Compound 32, Compound 34, Compound 52, Compound 253, Compound 254 and Compound 255”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one compound selected from Compound 27, Compound 32, Compound 34, Compound 52, Compound 253, Compound 254 and Compound 255”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 24, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al (US 2022/0069237) in view of No et al (US 2020/0119285).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0163] – Figure):
PNG
media_image1.png
292
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
comprising a first electrode (11), a second electrode (19) facing the first electrode and an organic layer (15) disposed between the first (11) and second (19) electrodes.
The organic layer comprises and emission layer ([0029]), where the emission layer comprises the following dopant organometallic compound ([0028]-[0029] and Page 45 – Compound 3):
PNG
media_image2.png
366
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not correspond Compound 253 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
314
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
given that the pyridine in the phenyl-pyridine ligand does not possess a methyl group as required by Compound 253. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 12-1 ([0134]):
PNG
media_image4.png
410
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where R52 can be -CH3 ([0142] and [0088]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 253 of the present claims.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a host compound ([0156]), the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises host compounds represented by Compounds GHH3 and GEH3.
No et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises two host compounds represented by Formula (1) and (2) (Abstract and [0142]-[0145]).
The second compound, represented by disclosed Formula (2), is exemplified as ([0137] and Page 70 – Compound 2-42):
PNG
media_image5.png
434
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
identical to compound GHH3 of the present claims.
The first host compound, represented by disclosed Formula (1), is exemplified as ([0136] and Page 32 – Compound 139):
PNG
media_image6.png
234
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
identical to compound GEH3 of the present claims.
The reference discloses that including the compounds represented by Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 in the light emitting layer results in superior efficiency and lifetime effects ([0134]).
Given that both Kwon et al and No et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices where the light emitting layers comprise host compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular host compounds as taught by No et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compound in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kwon et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, the combined disclosures of Kwon et al and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kwon et al discloses that a substrate is located under the first electrode (11) ([0164]). Accordingly, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device including a substrate and the organic light emitting device disposed on the substrate as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 29, the combined disclosures of Kwon et al and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Kwon et al does not disclose Compound 16 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
312
332
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
However, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 45 – Compound 1):
PNG
media_image8.png
282
270
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
and further discloses that in Formula 11-2 ([0126]):
PNG
media_image9.png
260
422
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
ring A2 can be a C1-30 heterocyclic group where the heteroatom is a nitrogen atom ([0053] and [0256]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring A2 possesses a nitrogen heteroatom, thereby obtaining Compound 16 of the claims.
Regarding claim 30, the combined disclosures of Kwon et al and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kwon et al discloses Compound 253 of the present claims.
Claims 9-14, 19-23, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2015/0280159) in view of Kwon et al (US 2022/0069237) and No et al (US 2020/0119285).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises a first electrode ([0031] – layer 10); a second electrode ([0033] – layer 20) facing the first electrode (10); and an emissive layer (layers 110 – 390). The emissive layer comprises: a first emitting part ([0034] – layer 110) disposed between the first electrode (10) and the second electrode (20). The first emitting part (100) comprises a first emitting layer ([0037] – layer 150), i.e. a first emitting material layer. The emissive layer further comprises a second emitting part ([0039] – 200) disposed between the first emitting payer (100) and the second electrode (20). The first emitting part (200) comprises a second emitting layer ([0041] – layer 250). A first charge generation layer ([0040] – 410) is disposed between the first emitting part (100) and the second emitting part (200).
The reference discloses the second emitting layer (250) includes a green emitting layer ([0041]); however, the reference does not disclose that this layer comprises the dopant represented by Formula (1) as required by the present claims.
The organic layer comprises and emission layer ([0029]), where the emission layer comprises the following dopant organometallic compound ([0028]-[0029] and Page 45 – Compound 3):
PNG
media_image2.png
366
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not correspond Compound 253 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
314
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
given that the pyridine in the phenyl-pyridine ligand does not possess a methyl group as required by Compound 253. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 12-1 ([0134]):
PNG
media_image4.png
410
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where R52 can be -CH3 ([0142] and [0088]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 253 of the present claims.
The reference discloses that an organic light emitting device utilizing the organometallic compound has low driving voltage, high efficiency, a long lifespan, reduced roll-off phenomenon, and exhibits excellent luminescence efficiency and color purity ([0146]-[0147]).
Given that both Kim et al and Kwon et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices containing green light emitting layers, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the organometallic compound as taught by Kwon et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such organometallic compounds in the green light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kim et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Kim et al and Kwon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, while Kim et al discloses a green emitting layer, the reference does not disclose host Compounds GHH3 and GEH3 recited in the present claims.
No et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises two host compounds represented by Formula (1) and (2) (Abstract and [0142]-[0145]).
The second compound, represented by disclosed Formula (2), is exemplified as ([0137] and Page 70 – Compound 2-42):
PNG
media_image5.png
434
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
identical to compound GHH3 of the present claims.
The first host compound, represented by disclosed Formula (1), is exemplified as ([0136] and Page 32 – Compound 139):
PNG
media_image6.png
234
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
identical to compound GEH3 of the present claims.
The reference discloses that including the compounds represented by Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 in the light emitting layer results in superior efficiency and lifetime effects ([0134]).
Given that both Kim et al and No et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices containing green light emitting layers, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compounds as taught by No et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the green light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kim et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
In this device the structure of the second emitting layer (250) (located in the second emitting part 200) is a follows ([0087] - Figure 3D):
PNG
media_image11.png
224
552
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
where the second emitting layer (250) comprises: a red second emitting layer ([0087] – layer 253), i.e. a first layer, disposed between the first charge generation layer (410) and the second electrode (20); and a green second emitting layer ([0087] – layer 257) disposed between the red second emitting layer 253), i.e. first layer, and the second electrode (20).
From the discussion above, Kwon et al discloses a green light emitting organometallic compound, while No et al discloses a host compound for green light emitting layers. Accordingly, in Kim et al, the green second emitting layer (257), i.e. second layer, comprises the organometallic compound disclosed by Kwon et al and the host compound disclosed by No et al.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following second emitting layer (250) (located in the second emitting part 200) ([0087] - Figure 3D):
PNG
media_image11.png
224
552
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the yellow-green second emitting layer ([0087] – 255), i.e. a third layer, is disposed between the red second emitting layer (230), i.e. first layer, and the green second emitting layer (257), i.e. second layer.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
In this device, the emissive layer further comprises a third emitting part ([0031] - 300) between the second emitting part (200) and the second electrode (20). This third emitting part comprises a third emitting layer ([0043] – layer 350), i.e. third emitting material layer. The device further comprises a second charge generation layer ([0031] - 420) located between the second emitting layer (200) and the third emitting part (300).
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
In this device the structure of the second emitting layer (250) (located in the second emitting part 200) is a follows ([0087] - Figure 3D):
PNG
media_image11.png
224
552
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
where the second emitting layer (250) comprises: a red second emitting layer ([0087] – layer 253), i.e. a first layer, disposed between the first charge generation layer (410) and the second electrode (20); and a green second emitting layer ([0087] – layer 257) disposed between the red second emitting layer 253), i.e. first layer, and the second electrode (20).
From the discussion above, Kwon et al discloses a green light emitting organometallic compound, while No et al discloses a host compound for green light emitting layers. Accordingly, in Kim et al, the green second emitting layer (257), i.e. second layer, comprises the organometallic compound disclosed by Kwon et al and the host compound disclosed by No et al.
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises a first electrode ([0031] – layer 10); a second electrode ([0033] – layer 20) facing the first electrode (10); and an emissive layer (layers 110 – 390). The emissive layer comprises: a first emitting part ([0034] – layer 110) disposed between the first electrode (10) and the second electrode (20). The first emitting part (100) comprises the following light emitting layers ([0058] – Figure 2A):
PNG
media_image12.png
212
496
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 151 is a blue emitting layer, i.e. a blue emitting material layer ([0061]).
In the disclosed light emitting device:
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
the emissive layer further comprises a second emitting part ([0039] – 200) disposed between the first emitting payer (100) and the second electrode (20). The first emitting part (200) comprises a second emitting layer ([0041] – layer 250). A first charge generation layer ([0040] – 410) is disposed between the first emitting part (100) and the second emitting part (200).
The reference discloses the second emitting layer (250) includes a green emitting layer ([0041]); however, the reference does not disclose that this layer comprises the dopant represented by Formula (1) as required by the present claims.
Kwon et al discloses a light emitting device where the emissive layer comprises the following dopant organometallic compound emitting green light ([0028]-[0029], [0147], and Page 45 – Compound 1):
The organic layer comprises and emission layer ([0029]), where the emission layer comprises the following dopant organometallic compound ([0028]-[0029] and Page 45 – Compound 3):
PNG
media_image2.png
366
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not correspond Compound 253 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
314
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
given that the pyridine in the phenyl-pyridine ligand does not possess a methyl group as required by Compound 253. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 12-1 ([0134]):
PNG
media_image4.png
410
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where R52 can be -CH3 ([0142] and [0088]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 253 of the present claims.
The reference discloses that an organic light emitting device utilizing the organometallic compound has low driving voltage, high efficiency, a long lifespan, reduced roll-off phenomenon, and exhibits excellent luminescence efficiency and color purity ([0146]-[0147]).
Given that both Kim et al and Kwon et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices containing green light emitting layers, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the organometallic compound as taught by Kwon et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such organometallic compounds in the green light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kim et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Kim et al and Kwon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, while Kim et al discloses a green emitting layer, the reference does not disclose host Compounds GHH3 and GEH3 recited in the present claims.
No et al discloses a green organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises two host compounds represented by Formulas (1) and (2) (Abstract, [0156], and [0142]-[0145]).
The second compound, represented by disclosed Formula (2), is exemplified as ([0137] and Page 70 – Compound 2-42):
PNG
media_image5.png
434
348
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
identical to compound GHH3 of the present claims.
The first host compound, represented by disclosed Formula (1), is exemplified as ([0136] and Page 32 – Compound 139):
PNG
media_image6.png
234
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
identical to compound GEH3 of the present claims.
The reference discloses that including the compounds represented by Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 in the light emitting layer results in superior efficiency and lifetime effects ([0134]).
Given that both Kim et al and No et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices containing green light emitting layers, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compounds as taught by No et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the green light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kim et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
In this device, the second emitting layer (250) (located in the second emitting part 200), corresponding to the recited at least one emitting material layer, possesses the following structure ([0087] - Figure 3D):
PNG
media_image11.png
224
552
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
where the second emitting layer (250) comprises: a red second emitting layer ([0087] – layer 253), i.e. a first layer, disposed between the first charge generation (410) and the second electrode (20); and a green second emitting layer ([0087] – layer 257), i.e. second layer, disposed between the red second emitting layer (253), i.e. first layer, and the second electrode (20).
From the discussion above, Kwon et al discloses a green light emitting organometallic compound, while No et al discloses a host compound for green light emitting layers. Accordingly, in Kim et al, the green second emitting layer (257), i.e. second layer, comprises the organometallic compound disclosed by Kwon et al and the host compound disclosed by No et al.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following second emitting layer (250), recited as the at least one emitting material layer, (located in the second emitting part 200) ([0087] - Figure 3D):
PNG
media_image11.png
224
552
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the yellow-green second emitting layer ([0087] – 255), i.e. a third layer, is disposed between the red second emitting layer (230), i.e. first layer, and the green second emitting layer (257), i.e. second layer.
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
In this device, the emissive layer further comprises a third emitting part ([0031] - 300) between the second emitting part (200) and the second electrode (20). This third emitting part comprises a third emitting layer ([0043] – layer 350), i.e. third emitting material layer. The device further comprises a second charge generation layer ([0031] - 420) located between the second emitting layer (200) and the third emitting part (300). The third emitting part comprises a blue light emitting layer ([0053] and [0045] – layer 350), i.e. a blue emitting material layer.
Regarding claim 22, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image10.png
848
1134
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
In this device the structure of the second emitting layer (250) (located in the second emitting part 200), i.e. the recited at least one emitting material layer, is a follows ([0087] - Figure 3D):
PNG
media_image11.png
224
552
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
where a red second emitting layer ([0087] – layer 253), i.e. a first layer, is disposed between the first charge generation layer (410) and the second electrode (20); and a green second emitting layer ([0087] – layer 257) disposed between the red second emitting layer (253), i.e. first layer, and the second electrode (20).
From the discussion above, Kwon et al discloses a green light emitting organometallic compound, while No et al discloses a host compound for green light emitting layers. Accordingly, in Kim et al, the green second emitting layer (257), i.e. second layer, comprises the organometallic compound disclosed by Kwon et al and the host compound disclosed by No et al.
Regarding claim 23, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kim et al discloses the following second emitting layer (250) (located in the second emitting part 200), i.e. the recited at least one emitting material layer, ([0087] - Figure 3D):
PNG
media_image11.png
224
552
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the yellow-green second emitting layer ([0087] – 255), i.e. a third layer, is disposed between the red second emitting layer (230), i.e. first layer, and the green second emitting layer (257), i.e. second layer.
Regarding claim 31, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Kwon et al does not disclose Compound 16 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
312
332
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
However, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 45 – Compound 1):
PNG
media_image8.png
282
270
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
and further discloses that in Formula 11-2 ([0126]):
PNG
media_image9.png
260
422
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
ring A2 can be a C1-30 heterocyclic group where the heteroatom is a nitrogen atom ([0053] and [0256]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where ring A2 possesses a nitrogen heteroatom, thereby obtaining Compound 16 of the claims.
Regarding claim 32, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Kwon et al discloses Compound 253 of the present claims.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2015/0280159), Kwon et al (US 2022/0069237) and No et al (US 2020/0119285), as applied to claims 9-14, 19-23, and 31-32 above, and in view of So et al (US 2005/0064234).
The discussion with respect to Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al as set forth in Paragraph 11 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 25, the combined disclosures of Kim et al, Kwon et al, and No et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Kim et al does not disclose that the organic light emitting device is disposed on a substrate as recited in the present claim.
So et al discloses that an organic light emitting device is typically comprised of a transparent anode, i.e. first electrode on a substrate ([0001]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to include a substrate disposed on the first electrode of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Kim et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of known element for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 9-11, 14, 19-25, and 29-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 10, 12, 15, and 21-27 of copending Application No. 17/957,336 (published as US PGPub 2023/0172051). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/957,336 recites an organic light emitting diode including a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an emissive layer disposed between the first and second electrodes. The emissive layer comprises at least one emitting material layer, where the emitting material layer comprises a first host represented by Formula 7 and a second host represented by Formula 9. Formulas 7 and 9 encompass Compounds GHH3 and GEH3 recited in instant claim 1. The dopant represented by Compounds 16, 17, 251, 252, 253, 254, etc. are identical to Compounds 16, 17, 251, 252, 253, 254, etc. of the present claims.
The difference between the organic light emitting diode in claim 1 of the copending application and that recited in instant claim 1, is that organic light emitting diode recited in claim 1 of the copending application requires the presence of a hole transport layer which comprises a compound represented by Formula 11 and an electron transport layer which comprises a compound represented by Formula 13. However, it is noted that claim 1 of the instant application recites the transitional phrase “comprising”, and is therefore, open to the inclusion of additional elements including the hole transport and electron transport layers recited in the copending application.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 10 of the copending application recites subject matter encompassed by instant claim 9.
Claim 11 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 10.
Claim 12 of the copending application recites subject encompassed by instant claim 11.
Claim 26 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 24.
Claim 1 of the copending application recites the compounds recited in instant claims 29 and 30.
Claim 15 of copending Application No. 17/957,336 recites an organic light emitting diode including a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an emissive layer disposed between the first and second electrodes. The emissive layer comprises a first emitting parts, a second emitting parts, and a first charge generation layer, identical to that recited in instant claim 14. The device further comprises at least one emitting material layer, where the emitting material layer comprises a first host represented by Formula 7and a second host represented by Formula 9. Formulas 7 and 9 encompass Compounds GHH3 and GEH3 recited in instant claim 1. The dopant represented by Compounds 16, 17, 251, 252, 253, 254, etc. are identical to Compounds 16, 17, 251, 252, 253, 254, etc. of the present claims.
The difference between the organic light emitting diode in claim 15 of the copending application and that recited in instant claim 14, is that organic light emitting diode recited in claim 15 of the copending application requires the presence of a hole transport layer which comprises a compound represented by Formula 11 and an electron transport layer which comprises a compound represented by Formula 13. However, it is noted that claim 14 of the instant application recites the transitional phrase “comprising”, and is therefore, open to the inclusion of additional elements including the hole transport and electron transport layers recited in the copending application.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 21 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 19.
Claim 22 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 20.
Claim 23 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 21.
Claim 24 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 22.
Claim 25 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 23.
Claim 27 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 25.
Claim 15 of the copending application recites the compounds recited in instant claims 31 and 32.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 9, 14, 19-25, and 29-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 10, 5, and 21-27 of copending Application No. 17/957,381 (published as US PGPub 2023/0171980). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons given below.
Claim 1 of copending Application No 17/957,381 recites an organic light emitting diode including a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an emissive layer disposed between the first and second electrodes. The emissive layer comprises at least one emitting material layer, where the emitting material layer comprises a first host represented by Formula 7, a second host represented by Formula 9, and a dopant represented by Formulas 1, 2 and 5B. Formulas 7 and 9 encompass Compounds GHH3 and GEH3 recited in instant claim 1 and the dopant encompasses Compounds 16, 17, 251, 252, 253, 254, etc. of the present claims
The difference between the organic light emitting diode in claim 1 of the copending application and that recited in instant claim 1, is that organic light emitting diode recited in claim 1 of the copending application requires the presence of a hole transport layer which comprises a compound represented by Formula 11 and an electron transport layer which comprises a compound represented by Formula 13. However, it is noted that claim 1 of the instant application recites the transitional phrase “comprising”, and is therefore, open to the inclusion of additional elements including the hole transport and electron transport layers recited in the copending application.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 10 of the copending application recites subject matter encompassed by instant claim 9.
Claim 26 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 24.
Claim 1 encompasses the dopant compound recited in instant claims 29 and 30.
Claim 15 of copending Application No. 17/957,381 recites an organic light emitting diode including a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an emissive layer disposed between the first and second electrodes. The emissive layer comprises a first emitting parts, a second emitting parts, and a first charge generation layer, identical to that recited in instant claim 14. The device further comprises at least one emitting material layer, where the emitting material layer comprises a first host represented by Formula 7, a second host represented by Formula 9, and a dopant represented by Formulas 1, 2 and 5B. Formulas 7 and 9 are identical to Formulas 7 and 9 recited in instant claim 14. Formulas 7 and 9 encompass Compounds GHH3 and GEH3 recited in instant claim 14 and the dopant encompasses Compounds 16, 17, 251, 252, 253, 254, etc. of the present claims
The difference between the organic light emitting diode in claim 1 of the copending.
The difference between the organic light emitting diode in claim 15 of the copending application and that recited in instant claim 14, is that organic light emitting diode recited in claim 15 of the copending application requires the presence of a hole transport layer which comprises a compound represented by Formula 11 and an electron transport layer which comprises a compound represented by Formula 13. However, it is noted that claim 14 of the instant application recites the transitional phrase “comprising”, and is therefore, open to the inclusion of additional elements including the hole transport and electron transport layers recited in the copending application.
Furthermore, it is noted that:
Claim 21 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 19.
Claim 22 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 20.
Claim 23 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 21.
Claim 24 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 22.
Claim 25 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 23.
Claim 27 of the copending application recites subject matter identical to instant claim 25.
Claim 15 encompasses the dopant compound recited in instant claims 31 and 32.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Kwon does not disclose the dopant compound as recited in the present claims. However, it is noted that while the reference does not exemplify the particular dopant compounds of the present claims, as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
366
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
and further discloses the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
410
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where R52 can be -CH3 ([0142] and [0088]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 253:
PNG
media_image3.png
314
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
of the present claims.
Applicants argue that Kwon does not disclose or render obvious the first and second host compounds recited in the present claims. However, it is for this reason that this reference was modified by No which discloses the first and second hosts recited in the present claim. To that end it is noted that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants argue that No does not disclose or render obvious to dopant recited in claims 1 and 14. However, while this reference does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, No is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the benefits of the recited first and second host compounds, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. If the secondary reference contained all the features of the present claimed invention, it would be identical to the present claimed invention, and there would be no need for secondary references.
Applicants argue that Kim and So do not disclose the first host, the second host or the dopant. However, firstly, it is recognized that Kim et al does not disclose the first and second host compounds or the dopant, and it is for this reason that this reference was modified by Kwon and No, which disclose the claimed dopant, and first and second host compounds, respectively. To that end it is noted that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Secondly, regarding, So, while this reference does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, the reference is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely that a light emitting device is typically comprised of a transparent anode, i.e. first electrode on a substrate, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. If the secondary reference contained all the features of the present claimed invention, it would be identical to the present claimed invention, and there would be no need for secondary references.
Applicants argue that based on the teachings of the applied art, there is nothing that would have provided a reason or motivation for the ordinarily skilled artisan to specifically select the combination that is set forth in the claims. However, regarding claim 1, it is the Examiner’s position absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to modify the organic light emitting device disclosed by Kwon with the host compounds disclosed by No, especially, given that No discloses that including the host compounds represented by Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 in the light emitting layer results in superior efficiency and lifetime effects. Accordingly, given that both Kwon et al and No et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices where the light emitting layers comprise host compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular host compounds as taught by No et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compound in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Kwon et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, it the Examiner’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the green light emitting layer disclosed by Kim et al to comprise the dopant disclosed by Kwon and the host compound disclosed by No given that Kwon discloses that this dopant results in low driving voltage, high efficiency, a long lifespan, reduced roll-off phenomenon, and exhibits excellent luminescence efficiency and color purity, while No discloses that the host compounds represented by Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 in the light emitting layer results in superior efficiency and lifetime effects.
Applicants argue that absent impermissible hindsight, the applied references would not have led a skilled artisan to the claimed organic light emitting diode. However, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding unexpected results, of the claimed compounds, Applicants point to Inventive Examples 27, 159, 196, 231, 267, 289, 297, 299, 301, 303, 305 and 307 in the specification, Compound GHH3 was used as the first host, Compound GEH was used as the second host, and Compound 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 27, 16, 17, 32, 34 and 35 was used as the dopant and compare these inventive examples to comparative examples which comprise one of the dopants recited in the present claims and the host compound CBP (see Tables, 3, 14, 17, 20, 23,25, and 26 presented in the instant Specification). However, the data presented in the instant Specification is not found to be persuasive for the reasons discussed below.
Firstly, it is noted that the comparative examples utilize a single host compound, while the inventive examples utilize a dual host system. A proper comparison would be one where the comparative examples possess a dule host system, e.g. CBP and GEH, and CBP and GHH3, to the inventive examples comprising GEH and GHH3 hosts.
Secondly, there does not appear to be anything unexpected or surprising in the inventive organic light emitting devices comprising both the GEH and GHH3 host compounds achieving lower driving voltages, quantum efficiency and longer lifetimes compared to comparative organic light emitting devices comprising the CBP host given that Paragraph [0017] of No et al discloses the following:
“using the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 at the same time in an organic light emitting device lowers a driving voltage of the device, enhances light efficiency, and can enhance a lifetime property of the device (emphasis added) with thermal stability of the compound”.
Based on the disclosure in Paragraph [0017], it is the Office’s position that No et al already recognizes the criticality of the hosts such as GEH and GHH3 in improving driving voltages, light efficiency and lifetimes of organic light emitting devices, and therefore, there nothing unexpected the inventive organic light emitting devices demonstrating improved driving voltages, quantum efficiency and lifetimes as compared to organic light emitting device comprising CBP as the host compound.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights