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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2, 8, and 12-14 have been canceled.
Claim 18 has been added.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 15-18 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 15 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 2, 8, and 12-14 obviates the rejections of claims 2, 8, and 12-14 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claim 7 have overcome the rejections of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 3-7, and 15 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (KR 2017/0136440 A, the English translation is referred to for figures and tables and the original document is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Cho),
the rejections of claims 7 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 2017/0136440 A, the English translation is referred to for figures and tables and the original document is referred to for the remainder body of the patent),
the rejections of claims 8-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 2017/0136440 A, the English translation is referred to for figures and tables and the original document is referred to for the remainder body of the patent), as applied to claims 12-13 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0227644 A1, hereafter Lee) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 35-38 of the reply filed 05/04/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho, the rejections of claims 7 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, and the rejections of claims 8-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho/Lee set forth in the Office Action of 02/04/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections refer to the Compound p187-1 of Cho, Modified compound of Cho (see sections 35 and 54 of the last Office Action) as the first compound. The compounds do not read on the Formula 1-1 of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 36 and 38-39 of the reply filed 05/04/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2023/0086039 A1, hereafter Kim), the rejections of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and the rejections of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Pang set forth in the Office Action of 02/04/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amine compound of Kim has a structure that necessarily includes a phenanthrene group at a position that may be considered to correspond to L4, L5, Ar4, or Ar5 of Chemical Formula 2; however, L4, L5, Ar4, or Ar5 of Chemical Formula 2 of the amended claim 1 fail to include phenanthrene group; therefore, the rejections need to be withdrawn.
The rejections refer to the Compound 2-17 of Kim (see section 40 of the last Office Action) as the second compound. The Compound 2-17 of Kim does not read on the limitation of the Chemical Formulas 2 and a. However, Kim is still applicable to make new grounds of rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
555
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim discloses an organic light emitting device (Example 136 in [0439]-[0440], [0442], Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 as a host, Compound 2-17 as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al).
The Compound 1-56 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1-1 of the instant claims.
The Compound 2-17 of Kim does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 2; however, Kim does teach that a compound represented by Formula 2 of Kim can be used as the second compound of the device of Kim ([0010]) and exemplifies a compound ([0091], the second compound on page 519, hereafter Compound p519-2).
The Compound p519-2 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formulas 2 and a, wherein L5 is a single bond; Ar5 is a substituted phenyl group; the substituted refers to replacement of at least one hydrogen of the compound by a C6 aryl group (i.e. phenyl). The phenanthrenyl group of the Compound p519-2 of Kim is the substituent of the C6 aryl group. The instant claim does not restrict which substituent can be the substituent of the C6 aryl group; thus, the Compound p519-2 of Kim reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formulas 2 and a.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Kim by substituting the second Compound 2-17 of Kim with the Compound p519-2 of Kim, as taught by Kim.
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Kim comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 of Kim as a host, Compound p519-2 of Kim as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al), wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic optoelectronic device; and the light emitting layer materials are a composition.
The Modified organic light emitting device of Kim reads on all the limitations of the amended claim 1. New grounds of rejection are applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 39-41 of the reply filed 05/04/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 12, and 17-18 of copending Application No. 17/741,013 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘013), the provisional rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 10, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 17/952,410 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘410), and the provisional rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 12, and 17-18 of copending Application No. 17/924,486 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘486) set forth in the Office Action of 02/04/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Applicant is allowed to address any obviousness-type double patenting issues remaining once the rejection of the claims are resolved.
The cited composition and the organic optoelectronic devices in the cited rejections still read on the limitation of the amended claims. The provisional rejections are not the only rejection remained. Thus, the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections are maintained.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0086039 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 15-16, and 18, Kim discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer containing a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2, and a cathode ([0008]-[0020]).
Kim exemplifies an organic light emitting device (Example 136 in [0439]-[0440], [0442], Table 1) comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 as a host, Compound 2-17 as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-56 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1-1 of the instant claims.
The Compound 2-17 of Kim does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 2; however, Kim does teach that a compound represented by Formula 2 of Kim can be used as the second compound of the device of Kim ([0010]) and exemplifies a compound ([0091], the second compound on page 519, hereafter Compound p519-2).
The Compound p519-2 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formulas 2 and a, wherein L5 is a single bond; Ar5 is a substituted phenyl group; the substituted refers to replacement of at least one hydrogen of the compound by a C6 aryl group (i.e. phenyl). The phenanthrenyl group of the Compound p519-2 of Kim is the substituent of the C6 aryl group. The instant claim does not restrict which substituent can be the substituent of the C6 aryl group; thus, the Compound p519-2 of Kim reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formulas 2 and a.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Kim by substituting the second Compound 2-17 of Kim with the Compound p519-2 of Kim, as taught by Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified second compounds represented by the Formula 2 of Kim in the organic light emitting device of Kim would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Kim comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 of Kim as a host, Compound p519-2 of Kim as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al), wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic optoelectronic device; and the light emitting layer materials are a composition.
Regarding claims 7, the Modified organic light emitting device of Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 of Kim as a host, Compound p519-2 of Kim as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al), wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic optoelectronic device; and the light emitting layer materials are a composition.
The Compound 1-56 of Kim does not read on the limitation of claim 7; however, Kim does teach that Compound 1-49 can be used as the first compound of Formula 1 of Kim ([0240]).
PNG
media_image2.png
370
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-49 of Kim has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 151 of the instant claim 7. The only difference is that the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to R1 of the Formula 1 of Kim (i.e. the position-6 which is pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be an unsubstituted phenyl group; however, Kim does teach that R1 can be an unsubstituted C6 aryl group ([0014]). Kim exemplifies specific embodiments wherein an unsubstituted phenyl group as the R1 of the Formula 1 is substituted to the position-6 of the dibenzofuranyl group (see embodiments in [0066] including at least the third compound on page 6,
PNG
media_image3.png
293
250
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Kim by 1) substituting the Compound 1-56 of Kim with the Compound 1-49 of Kim and 2) substituting the hydrogen atom of the Compound 1-49 of Kim at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 1 of Kim with an unsubstituted phenyl, as taught by Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified first compounds represented by Formula 1 of Kim in the OLED device of Kim would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The substitution of the exemplified substituents from hydrogen to an unsubstituted phenyl at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula 1 of Kim would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Kim (2) comprising an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Modified Compound 1-49 of Kim as a host, Compound p519-2 of Kim as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al), wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic optoelectronic device; and the light emitting layer materials are a composition, wherein the Modified Compound 1-49 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 151.
PNG
media_image4.png
304
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0086039 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 15-16, and 18 as outlined above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 17, the Modified organic light emitting device of Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode (ITO), a light emitting layer (Compound 1-56 of Kim as a host, Compound p519-2 of Kim as a host, Compound Dp-7 as a dopant), and a cathode (Al), wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic optoelectronic device; and the light emitting layer materials are a composition.
Kim does not disclose a specific display device comprising the organic light emitting device of Kim.
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light-emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a thin film transistor (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Kim by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the organic light-emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Display device of Kim as modified by Pang comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Kim.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2016/0233430 A1, hereafter Heo) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0227644 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 15-18, Heo discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0002]) and exemplifies Compound 2-1 ([0212]).
PNG
media_image5.png
272
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2-1 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1-1 of the instant claims.
Heo does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 2-1 of Heo as the host of the light emitting layer; however, Heo does teach the compound of Formula 1 of Heo can be used as the host material with a dopant in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device ([0220]-[0221], [0232]).
Heo teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode (Figs. 1-2, [0017]-[0018]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2-1 of Heo by incorporating it into the light emitting layer as the host with a dopant in an organic light emitting device having structure of an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode, as taught by Heo.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution of the hosts of Heo in the OLED of Heo would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Heo comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound 2-1 of Heo as a host and a dopant), and a cathode.
The Modified organic light emitting device of Heo does not include a second host in the light emitting layer.
Lee discloses an organic light emitting device, wherein the light emitting layer contains two hosts (Formula A and Formula D) ([0011]). Lee exemplifies Compound H139 ([0128]), which has identical structure as Applicants Formula 2 of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image6.png
360
619
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2-1 of Heo is encompassed by the Formula D of Lee, wherein HAr4 can be a substituted heteroaryl of 3 to 30 carbon atoms; L can be an unsubstituted arylene of 6 to 60 carbon atoms; n1 is 1; n2 is 1; m1 is 1; and Az is Formula 2
PNG
media_image7.png
112
78
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, wherein Z1 and Z3 can be each N; Z2, Z4, and Z5 can be each CR22, CR24, and CR25; R20 is linker to the L; R22, R24, and R25 can be each hydrogen or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl group ([0021]-[0048]).
Lee teaches that the organic light emitting device comprising the light emitting layer containing the compounds of the Formulas A and D in the light emitting layer provides low voltage, improved emission efficiency, and long lifetime ([0182], [0010]-[0011]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Heo by incorporating the Compound H139 of Lee as the second host compound in the light emitting layer of the device, as taught by Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide low voltage, improved emission efficiency, and long lifetime, based on the teaching of Lee.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Heo as modified by Lee comprising an anode, a light emitting layer (Compound 2-1 of Heo as a host (first compound), Compound H139 of Lee as a host (second compound), and a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the light emitting device is an optoelectronic device; the light emitting layer materials are equated with a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15-16, and 18.
Heo in view of Lee does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Heo as modified by Lee.
Lee teaches that an organic light emitting device can be applied to a display device such as flat display device and flexible display device ([0220]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Heo as modified by Lee by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Heo and Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flat display device or flexible display device, based on the teaching of Lee.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic light emitting devices in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Display device of Heo as modified by Lee comprising the Organic light emitting device of Heo as modified by Lee, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 12, and 17-18 of copending Application No. 17/741,013 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘013). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 17-18, Application ‘013 discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition comprising a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2 (claim 17).
Application ‘013 exemplifies Compound 1-29 as the Formula 1 (claim 5) and Compound 2-81 as the Formula 2 (claim 12).
PNG
media_image8.png
373
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Application ‘013 does not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound 1-29 and Compound 2-18; however, Application ‘013 does teach an organic optoelectronic device comprising a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 (claim 17 ) and exemplifies Compound 1-29 as the Formula 1 (claim 5) and Compound 2-81 as the Formula 2 (claim 12).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic optoelectronic device by incorporating Compound 1-29 and Compound 2-81 into the light emitting layer, as taught by Application ‘031.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, each substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013 comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition comprising a composition comprising a first Compound 1-29 and a second Compound 2-18, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 18.
Application ‘013 does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013; however, Application ‘013 does teach a display device comprising an organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013 (claim 18).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013 by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Application ‘031.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified display device of Application ‘013 comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘013, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 10, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 17/952,410 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘410). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 17-18, Application ‘410 discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition as a host comprising a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2 (claim 15).
Application ‘410 exemplifies Compound 5 as the Formula 1 (claim 6) and a second compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 as the Formula 2 (claim 10).
PNG
media_image9.png
358
572
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Application ‘410 does not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound 5 and Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2; however, Application ‘410 does teach an organic optoelectronic device comprising a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 (claim 15) and exemplifies Compound 5 as the Formula 1 (claim 6) and a second compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 as the Formula 2 (claim 10).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic optoelectronic device by incorporating a composition of Compound 5 and Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 into the light emitting layer as a host, as taught by Application ‘031.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, each substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘410 comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition comprising a composition comprising a first Compound 5 and a second Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 18.
Application ‘410 does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘410; however, Application ‘410 does teach a display device comprising an organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘410 (claim 16).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘410 by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Application ‘410.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified display device of Application ‘410 comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘410, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 12, and 17-18 of copending Application No. 17/924,486 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘486). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 17-18, Application ‘486 discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition as a host comprising a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2 (claim 17).
Application ‘486 exemplifies Compound 31 as the Formula 1 (claim 8) and a second compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 as the Formula 2 (claim 12).
PNG
media_image10.png
330
634
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Application ‘486 does not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound 31 and Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2; however, Application ‘486 does teach an organic optoelectronic device comprising a compound of Formula 1 and a compound of Formula 2 (claim 17) as a host and exemplifies Compound 31 as the Formula 1 (claim 8) and a second compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 as the Formula 2 (claim 12).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic optoelectronic device by incorporating a composition of Compound 31 and Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2 into the light emitting layer as a host, as taught by Application ‘031.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, each substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486 comprising an anode, an organic layer, and a cathode, wherein the organic layer includes a light emitting layer containing a composition comprising a first Compound 31 and a second Compound of Formula 2-VIIIB-2, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 15, and 18.
Application ‘486 does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486; however, Application ‘486 does teach a display device comprising an organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486 (claim 18).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486 by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Application ‘486.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified display device of Application ‘486 comprising the Modified organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘486, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights