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 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 13-20 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 5 and 8 have overcome the rejections of claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 13-14, and 20 have overcome the rejections of claims 13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 3-5, and 13-20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 14-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2022/0004116 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Hatakeyama),
the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2022/0004116 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent),
the rejections of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2022/0004116 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 1-10 and 14-19 above, further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1, hereafter Adamovich) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1, hereafter Chen) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 40-43 of the reply filed 06/23/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 14-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama, the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama, and the rejections of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama/Adamovich/Chen set forth in the Office Action of 03/25/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the acridine group does not appear to satisfy either alternative of the amended claims 1 and 14 because it is not a carbazole group.
The rejections refer to Compound 4-43 of Hatakeyama (see section 23 of the last Office Action), wherein the substituents at the positions corresponding to the R3 and R4 of Applicant’s Formula 1 of the amended claims are each an acridine group. However, the amended claims require the heteroaryl groups to be a substituted or unsubstituted carbazole group or a heteroaryl group wherein the heteroatom is B, O, P, Si, or S. Thus, the Compound 4-43 of Hatakeyama does not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 40-43 of the reply filed 06/23/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama set forth in the Office Action of 03/25/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that xxx.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to the Modified compound of Hatakeyama (see section 49 of the last Office Action). The compound can still read on all the limitations of Formula 1 of the amended claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
263
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The instant claims 1 and 14 recite “a corresponding benzene ring that is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring.” There are three benzene rings fused to each of the B-containing rings (see rings X, Y, and Z in the figure above). As written, the amended claims do not require the corresponding benzene ring that is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring to be the benzene ring which has a direct bond with a carbazole group, because there is at least another benzene ring which is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring (i.e. the ring Y or Z in the figure above). The word “corresponding” here does not further limit the position of the benzene ring following the word corresponding, because the claim does not specify what is exactly corresponded.
For instance, the benzene ring substituted by a t-butyl group (i.e. the ring X in the figure above) can be interpreted as a corresponding benzene ring that is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring. Because none of carbazole groups is bonded to the benzene ring substituted by the t-butyl group, the Modified compound of Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 1.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 43-44 of the reply filed 06/23/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 14-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of US Patent No. 12,284,905 (hereafter Patent ‘905), the rejections of claims 1-12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-13 of US Patent No. 12,284,905 (hereafter Patent ‘905) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1), the provisional rejections of claims 14-17 and 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/356,509 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘509), and the provisional rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-4 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/356,509 (reference application) in Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 03/25/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in view of the amendment without requiring a terminal disclaimer.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections are maintained because the Compound 255 of Patent ‘905 and Compound 142 of Application ‘509 (sections 67 and 86 of the last Office Action) still read on all the limitations of Formula 1 of the amended claims.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 14, and 16-17, Applicant recites “a corresponding benzene ring that is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring.”
PNG
media_image2.png
250
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There are three benzene rings fused to each of the B-containing rings (see rings X, Y, and Z in the figure above). It is unclear which benzene ring is required to be the corresponding benzene ring. The word “corresponding” does not further limit the position of the benzene ring following the word corresponding, because the claim does not specify what is exactly corresponded.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean any benzene ring that is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring.
Regarding claims 2-13 and 15-20, claims 2-13 and 15-20 are rejected due to the dependency from claims 1 and 14.
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 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.
Claims 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2021/0050537 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘537).
Regarding claims 14-17 and 19, Hatakeyama ‘537 discloses a compound used for a light emitting element ([0011]), wherein the compound can be represented by Formula (ii) ([0030]). Hatakeyama ‘537 exemplifies BN2/BNO-0211/0510/S-1 ([0436], hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 reads on all the limitations of Formula 1.
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 1-4, 6-10, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2022/0004116 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘116).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-17, and 19, Hatakeyama ‘116 discloses a thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) compound used for a light emitting element ([0001], [0014]), wherein the compound can be represented by Formula (ii) ([0071]) and at least one of rings a, b, c, and d is substituted by Formula (D) ([0077]). Hatakeyama ‘116 exemplifies Compound (4-43) ([0790]).
PNG
media_image4.png
452
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Compound (4-43) of Hatakeyama ‘116, the acridine group corresponding to the Formula (D) of Hatakeyama ‘116 is not an unsubstituted carbazole group represented by Formula R-8 of the instant claim; however, Hatakeyama ‘116 does teach that the Q of Formula (D) can be a single bond ([0021]); and R21 to R28 can be each independently hydrogen ([0023]). Hatakeyama ‘116 exemplifies Formula (D-B-0000),
PNG
media_image5.png
139
147
media_image5.png
Greyscale
as the Formula (D) ([0370]).
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 (4-43) of Hatakeyama ‘116 by substituting the acridine groups at the positions corresponding to Formula (D) with an unsubstituted carbazole represented by Formula (D-B-0000),
PNG
media_image5.png
139
147
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, as taught by Hatakeyama ‘116.
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 acridine with an unsubstituted carbazole 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 compound of Hatakeyama ‘116.
PNG
media_image6.png
259
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The instant claims 1 and 14 recite “a corresponding benzene ring that is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring.” There are three benzene rings fused to each of the B-containing ring (see rings X, Y, and Z in the figure above). As written, the amended claims do not require the corresponding benzene ring that is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring to be the benzene ring which has a direct bond with a carbazole group, because there is at least another benzene ring which is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring (i.e. the ring Y or Z in the figure above). For instance, the benzene ring substituted by a t-butyl group (i.e. the ring X in the figure above) can be interpreted as a corresponding benzene ring that is fused to an adjacent B-containing ring. Because none of carbazole groups is bonded to the benzene ring substituted by the t-butyl group, the Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 1.
The Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 reads on all the limitations of claims 14-17 and 19.
Hatakeyama ‘116 does not disclose a specific light emitting element comprising the Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116; however, Hatakeyama ‘116 does teach a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer contains the polycyclic compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 as a dopant and a compound of Formula (H1) as a host ([1018], [1027], [1031]). Hatakeyama ‘116 exemplifies mCBP
PNG
media_image7.png
124
165
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as the host compound ([1045]). The compound mCBP has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula HT of the instant claims.
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 compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 by incorporating it as the dopant with mCBP as a host, as taught by Hatakeyama ‘116.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of exemplified dopants and hosts 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 light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (a first compound which is the Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 used as a dopant, a second compound mCBP used as a host), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-9.
The Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emission layer is to emit blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116, wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The emission color of the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116 is determined by the Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 since the compound is the only emitter.
The instant specification states that the polycyclic compound according to an embodiment of the instant invention emits blue light ([00149]). The Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above and has identical core structure as Applicant’s embodiments including at least Compound 93-94, 96, and 99-100.
Furthermore, Hatakeyama ‘116 teaches a light emitting element comprising a B,N-containing polycyclic compound having similar core structure as the Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 emits blue light (Examples 9, 11, and 16-17 in Tables 4 and 6)
Therefore, the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116, wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 10.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2022/0004116 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-17, and 19 above, further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1, hereafter Adamovich) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1, hereafter Chen).
Regarding claims 11-12, the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a first compound which is the Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 used as a dopant, a second compound mCBP used as a host), and a second electrode.
The emission layer of the device does not include a triazine host and a phosphorescent sensitizer; however, Hatakeyama ‘116 does teach that the emission layer can comprise a known host ([1031]). It is known in the art that mCBP is used with another host to form a cohost system.
Adamovich discloses a light emitting element comprising a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, and a hole transporting host ([0011]). The mCBP is one of a wide band gap host taught by Adamovich ([0038]). Adamovich exemplifies a hole transporting host ([0046], hereafter HTH). Adamovich exemplifies a triazine compound as an electron transporting host ([0042], hereafter ETH). The ETH of Adamovich reads on all the limitations of Formula ET of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image8.png
296
652
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Adamovich teaches that the use of additional cohosts provides reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime ([0035]). Adamovich further teaches the emission layer can include a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0047]).
Chen discloses a Pt-based organometallic complex ([0015]-[0016]) which can be used as a phosphorescent sensitizer of a light emitting element ([0087]). Chen exemplifies Compound 6444920,
PNG
media_image9.png
218
275
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(page 167). The compound reads on all the limitations of Formula M-b of the instant claims.
Chen teaches the compound of Chen provides tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency ([0015], [0256]).
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 light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116 by incorporating compounds ETH and HTH of Adamovich as additional hosts and Compound 644920 of Chen as a phosphorescent sensitizer, as taught by Adamovich and Chen.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime based on the teaching of Adamovich, and to provide tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency based on the teaching of Chen.
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 Light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘116, Adamovich and Chen comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Modified compound of Hatakeyama ‘116 as a first compound, a second Compound mCBP, a third Compound ETH of Adamovich, a compound HTH of Adamovich, and a fourth Compound 644920 of Chen), and a second electrode.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2021/0050537 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘537).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-10, Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 (BN2/BNO-0211/0510/S-1 in [0436]) reads on all the features of Formula 1 of the instant claims as outlined above.
Hatakeyama ‘537 does not disclose a specific light emitting element comprising the Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537; however, Hatakeyama ‘537 does teach a light emitting element comprising an emission layer containing a first compound as a host, a second compound as a TADF material, and a third compound containing a boron atom ([0011]-[0016]).
Hatakeyama ‘537 teaches the structure of a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (mCBP, 2PXZ-TAZ, and a boron containing compound), and a second electrode. The compound mCBP has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula HT of the instant claims.
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 A of Hatakeyama ‘537 by incorporating it as the dopant with mCBP as a host and 2PXZ-TAZ as a TADF material, as taught by Hatakeyama ‘537.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of exemplified hosts, TADF materials, and dopants 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 light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (the first Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host, 2PXZ-TAZ), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-9.
The Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emission layer is to emit blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537, wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The emission color of the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 is determined by the Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 since the compound is the emitter of the emission layer.
The instant specification states that the polycyclic compound according to an embodiment of the instant invention emits blue light ([00149]). The Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above and has identical core structure as Applicant’s embodiments including at least Compound 93-94, 96, and 99-100.
Therefore, the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537, wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 10.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 11, the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 reads on all the features of claim 1 and 14 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (the first Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host, 2PXZ-TAZ as a TADF material), and a second electrode.
The compound 2PXZ-TAZ does not comprise triazine; however, Hatakeyama ‘537 does teach that a compound comprising a triazine moiety including PIC-TRZ can be used as the TADF material of the device of Hatakeyama ‘537 ([0295]).
PNG
media_image10.png
251
257
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The compound PIC-TRZ has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula ET in the instant claims.
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 light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 by substituting the TADF material of 2PXZ-TAZ with PIC-TRZ as taught by Hatakeyama ‘537.
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 exemplified TADF materials of Hatakeyama ‘537 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 light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 (2) comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (the first Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host, a third compound PIC-TRZ as a TADF material), and a second electrode.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2021/0050537 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-17, and 19 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao) and Vezzu et al. (“Highly Luminescent Tetradentate Bis-Cyclometalated Platinum Complexes: Design, Synthesis, Structure, Photophysics, and Electroluminescence Application”, Inorg. Chem. 2010, vol. 49, page 5107-5119, hereafter Vezzu).
Regarding claim 12, the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 (2) reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (the first Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host, a third compound PIC-TRZ as a TADF material), and a second electrode.
The device is a blue light emitting device, which is not a white light emitting device.
Liao discloses a light emitting element comprising multiple stacks of white EL units, i.e. tandem white OLED (Fig. 4, [0002]). Each white EL unit can be formed by stacking of red, green, and blue light emitting layers (Fig. 5 and [0053]; [0047]).
Liao teaches the tandem white device provides high luminance efficiency and high brightness ([0009]).
Huo discloses Pt complex (Compound 1 in Scheme 2) used as a green emitter of an organic light emitting element (Abstract; and page 5116, col. 2, last paragraph).
PNG
media_image11.png
217
478
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1 of Huo has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula M-b.
Huo teaches Compound 1 provides high efficiency and rigidity (conclusion).
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 light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 by using the emission layer of the device as a blue layer and combining it with a green layer comprising the Compound 1 of Huo to make a tandem white device, as taught by Liao and Huo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device with high luminance efficiency, high brightness, and high rigidity, based on the teaching of Liao and Huo.
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 Light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 as modified by Liao and Luo comprising a first electrode, a blue emission layer (the first Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host, a third compound PIC-TRZ as a TADF material), a green emission layer (Compound 1 of Huo), a red emission layer, a CGL, a second white EL unit, and a second electrode.
None of instant claims require the claimed emission layer to be a homogeneous mixture of constituent materials; that is, a composite emission layer made of combination of multiple sub emission layers reads on the claimed emission layer.
The Light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 as modified by Liao and Luo is equated with a device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer comprising blue, green, and red sublayers, and a second electrode, wherein the bule sublayer comprises the first Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host, a third compound PIC-TRZ as a TADF material; and the green sublayer comprises the fourth Compound 1 of Huo.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2021/0050537 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-17, and 19 above, further in view of Han et al. (“Ideal blue thermally activated delayed fluorescence emission assisted by a thermally activated delayed fluorescence assistant dopant through a fast reverse intersystem crossing mediated cascade energy transfer process”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2019, vol. 7, page 3082-3089, hereafter Han).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the Modified light emitting element of Hatakeyama ‘537 reads on all the features of claim 1 and 14 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (the first Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537 as a dopant, a second compound mCBP as a host, 2PXZ-TAZ), and a second electrode.
PNG
media_image12.png
368
691
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In the Compound A of Hatakeyama ‘537, the methyl groups substituted to the benzene rings at the positions corresponding to the ring B and D of the Formula (ii) of Hatakeyama ‘537 are not each a t-butyl group; however, Hatakeyama ‘537 does teach that the ring B and D can be substituted by alkyl ([0055]). Hatakeyama ‘537 exemplifies t-butyl as the alkyl group ([0093]; and see examples in [0432]-[0446] including at least compound B2N4-0230/S-B3).
Han discloses boron-containing compound used as the emitter of an organic light emitting element (Abstract, Fig. 4).
Han teaches that t-butyl group provides suppressed intermolecular interaction between emitters (page 3083, col. 2, par. 2) and provides the OLED device comprising the compound substituted by t-butyl groups with higher EQE as compared to the that with unsubstituted compound (page 3085, col. 2, par. 2).
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 A of Hatakeyama ‘537 by substituting the methyl group with t-butyl group, as taught by Hatakeyama ‘537 and Han.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide suppressed intermolecular interaction between emitters and the OLED device with higher EQE, based on the teaching of Han.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of exemplified hosts, TADF materials, and dopants 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 Compound of Hatakeyama ‘537 as modified by Han.
PNG
media_image13.png
268
699
media_image13.png
Greyscale
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 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of US Patent No. 12,284,905 (hereafter Patent ‘905). 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.
Regarding claims 14-19, the Patent ‘905 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound of Formula 1 (claim 1). Patent ‘905 exemplifies Compound 255 as the Formula 1 (claim 13).
PNG
media_image14.png
376
663
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The Compound 255 of Patent ‘905 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 14-19.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-13 of US Patent No. 12,284,905 (hereafter Patent ‘905) in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1). 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.
Regarding claims 1-12, the Patent ‘905 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound of Formula 1 (claim 1). Patent ‘905 exemplifies Compound 255 as the Formula 1 (claim 13).
PNG
media_image14.png
376
663
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The Compound 255 of Patent ‘905 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims.
Patent ‘905 teaches the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant (claim 11). Patent ‘905 teaches the emission layer of the device of Patent ‘905 emits blue light having a center wavelength of about 450 nm to about 470 nm (claim 12).
Patent ‘905 does not disclose a specific light emitting element wherein the emission layer comprises the Compound 255 as a dopant emitting blue light, a specific host, and a sensitizer.
Adamovich discloses a light emitting element comprising a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, and a hole transporting host ([0011]). Adamovich exemplifies mCBP as a wide band gap host ([0038]). Adamovich exemplifies a hole transporting host ([0046], hereafter HTH). Adamovich exemplifies a triazine compound as an electron transporting host ([0042], hereafter ETH). The ETH of Adamovich reads on all the limitations of Formula ET of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image8.png
296
652
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Adamovich teaches the emission layer can include a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0047]). Adamovich teaches that the use of additional cohosts provides reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime ([0035]).
Chen discloses a Pt-based organometallic complex ([0015]-[0016]) which can be used as a phosphorescent sensitizer of a light emitting element ([0087]). Chen exemplifies Compound 6444920,
PNG
media_image9.png
218
275
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(page 167). The compound reads on all the limitations of Formula M-b of the instant claims.
Chen teaches the compound of Chen provides tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency ([0015], [0256]).
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 255 of Patent ‘905 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting element having structure of a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, with compounds mCBP, ETH, and HTH of Adamovich as hosts, and Compound 644920 of Chen as a phosphorescent sensitizer, as taught by Patent ‘905, Adamovich and Chen.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime based on the teaching of Adamovich, and to provide tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency based on the teaching of Chen.
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 emission layer dopants 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 Light emitting element of Patent ‘905 as modified by Adamovich and Chen comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a first Compound 255 of Patent ‘905, a second Compound mCBP, a third Compound ETH of Adamovich, a compound HTH of Adamovich, and a fourth Compound 644920 of Chen), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer emits blue light having a center wavelength of about 450 nm to about 470 nm.
Claims 14-17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/356,509 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘509). 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 14-17 and 19, Application ‘509 discloses a compound of Formula 1 (claim 9) and exemplifies Compound 142 (claim 21).
PNG
media_image15.png
331
712
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The Compound 142 of Application ‘905 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 14-17 and 19.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-4 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/356,509 (reference application) in Adamovich et al. (US 2014/0197389 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2020/0140471 A1). 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 1-4 and 6-12, Application ‘509 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer comprising a compound of Formula 1, and a second electrode (claim 2) and exemplifies Compound 142 (claim 21).
PNG
media_image15.png
331
712
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The Compound 142 of Application ‘905 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims.
Application ‘509 teaches the emission layer comprises a host, a dopant, and a sensitizer, wherein the host comprises a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host or a combination, and the dopant is the boron compound (claims 3-4).
Application ‘509 does not disclose a specific light emitting element wherein the emission layer comprises the Compound 142 as a dopant, a specific host, and a sensitizer.
Adamovich discloses a light emitting element comprising a wide band gap host, an electron transporting host, and a hole transporting host ([0011]). Adamovich exemplifies mCBP as a wide band gap host ([0038]). Adamovich exemplifies a hole transporting host ([0046], hereafter HTH). Adamovich exemplifies a triazine compound as an electron transporting host ([0042], hereafter ETH). The ETH of Adamovich reads on all the limitations of Formula ET of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image8.png
296
652
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Adamovich teaches the emission layer can include a phosphorescent sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0047]). Adamovich teaches that the use of additional cohosts provides reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime ([0035]).
Chen discloses a Pt-based organometallic complex ([0015]-[0016]) which can be used as a phosphorescent sensitizer of a light emitting element ([0087]). Chen exemplifies Compound 6444920,
PNG
media_image9.png
218
275
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(page 167). The compound reads on all the limitations of Formula M-b of the instant claims.
Chen teaches the compound of Chen provides tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency ([0015], [0256]).
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 142 of Application ‘509 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting element having structure of a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, with compounds mCBP, ETH, and HTH of Adamovich as hosts, and Compound 644920 of Chen as a phosphorescent sensitizer, as taught by Application ‘509, Adamovich and Chen.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide reduced exciton quenching and improved efficiency and/or lifetime based on the teaching of Adamovich, and to provide tunability in physical properties, sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, and provides high device efficiency based on the teaching of Chen.
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 emission layer dopants 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 Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a first Compound 142 of Application ‘509, a second Compound mCBP, a third Compound ETH of Adamovich, a compound HTH of Adamovich, and a fourth Compound 644920 of Chen), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12.
The Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the emission layer is to emit blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen, wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The emission color of the Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen is determined by the Compound 142 of Application ‘509 since the compound is the only emitter.
The instant specification states that the polycyclic compound according to an embodiment of the instant invention emits blue light ([00149]). The Compound 142 of Application ‘509 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Therefore, the Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen, wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 10.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Light emitting element of Application ‘509 as modified by Adamovich and Chen is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
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