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 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
The cancellation of the claim 2 obviates the rejection of claim 2 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 1 and 6 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1, 5, 7-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 112480156 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Wang),
the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 112480156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo),
the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 112480156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) in view of Duan et al. (US 2020/0083460, hereafter Duan) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 8 of the reply filed 05/07/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the Office Action of 03/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claim 6 has been amended to replace Chemical Formula E-3 with a corrected structure in which the germanium atom is bonded to four substituents; accordingly, claim 6 now properly depends from claim 1.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
While the issue of the structure surrounding the Ge atom has been fixed, a new issue has been created. The B-, X1-, and X2-containing polycyclic structure has been amended to be two cyclohexyl polycyclic structure
PNG
media_image1.png
67
113
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which is not encompassed by the Formula 1 of the instant claim 1. Claim 6 fails to incorporate all the limitations to which the claim refer. Thus, the 112(d) rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 8-9 of the reply filed 05/07/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 5, 7-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Seo, and the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Duan set forth in the Office Action of 03/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Wang does not disclose each and every limitation of amended independent claim 1 and its dependent claims.
The rejections refer to the Compound 31-1 of Wang (see section 10 of the last Office Action). However, the compound does not reads on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 9-11 of the reply filed 05/07/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0422617 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama) and Yao et al. (“Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025, hereafter Yao), the rejection of claims 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Hatakeyama, Yao and Seo set forth in the Office Action of 03/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Yao concerns a specific relatively simple DCzGe host structure and its silicon analog, and Yao provides no reasonable expectation that the same substitution would be applicable to the distinct and substantially more complex B,O-containing fused polycyclic core recited in amended claim 1.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The teaching of Yao is directed to the benefits resulting from the substitution of the Si atom of the Si-containing compound used for an organic light emitting device with a Ge atom. An ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the Si atom of a Si-containing compound with a Ge atom because the teaching of Yao is directed to the benefits of the substitution of Si with Ge in a Si-containing compound.
Li discloses a compound used for an organic optoelectronic device ([0007] and exemplifies Compound S-204 ([0057]).
PNG
media_image2.png
373
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound S-204 of Li has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the tetraphenyl silane groups of the compound are required to be each a tetraphenyl germanium group (or the silicon atoms are required to be Ge atoms); however, Ge is an obvious substituent of Si, because both atoms are in the same elemental group (i.e. Group IV), indicating their properties are similar. Furthermore, it is known in the art that a compound comprising a tetraphenyl germanium group provides more benefits as compared to a compound comprising a tetraphenyl silane group, otherwise same.
Yao discloses a tetraphenyl germanium compound (DCzGe) used for an organic optoelectronic device (Abstract, Scheme 1).
Yao teaches that a tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility as compared to a tetraphenyl silane compound such that the OLED device comprising the tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE compared to the OLED device comprising a tetraphenyl silane compound, otherwise same (page 5018, col. 1, paragraph 2; and “Conclusion” on page 5023-5024).
PNG
media_image3.png
219
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It should be highlighted that Yao directly compares two compounds, DCzGe and DCzSi (page 5024, column 1, lines 6; and see reference 51 by Kim et al. Thin Solid Films, 2008, vol. 517, page 722), wherein the only difference is that the Compound DCzGe of Yao has a germanium atom, while the compound DCzSi has a silicon atom otherwise they have the same structure. Thus, an ordinary skill in the art would understand that the benefits taught by Yao stems from the substitution of the Si atom in a Si-containing compound with a Ge atom.
At the time when the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound S-204 of Li by substituting the tetraphenyl silane moieties with tetraphenyl germanium moieties (i.e. substitution of silicon atoms with germanium atoms) to achieve the benefits taught by Yao.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the presently claimed invention exhibits unexpected results. The inventive Example 1 provides higher current efficiency and maximum external quantum efficiency (EQE) than the Comparative Example 1 (page 10-11).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
It is unclear the results are unexpected for at least the following reasons.
First, the Comparative Example 1 device is not the closest prior art.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
The Comparative Example 1 comprises Chemical Formula C-1 (page 25 of the specification); however, the Chemical Formula C-1 is not the closest prior art.
PNG
media_image4.png
439
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The compound of Li has a general structure of Formula (1) ([0007]-[0016]). Although the Formula (1) of Li generally allows the variables Z9 and Z10 to be each CH and the ring A to be an unsubstituted phenyl, the specific embodiments of Li (i.e. closest prior arts) do not include any compounds same or even similar as the Chemical Formula C-1 ([0057]; see the B- and O-containing polycyclic compounds on page 56-67, and see the dopant compounds in the exemplary devices in Table 2). The closes prior arts are directed to a compound of Formula (1) of Li, wherein 1) the carbon atoms at the position corresponding to the Z9 and Z10 of Formula (1) of Li are substituted by a carbocyclic or heterocyclic rings, or 2) the ring A is a substituted by a carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring. In the disclosure of Li, there is no specific embodiment having the same structure of the Applicant’s Chemical Formula C-1, or even a similar compound containing the same moiety at the positions corresponding to the ring containing Z9 and Z10 and the ring A (i.e. the moiety corresponding to the structure
PNG
media_image5.png
115
84
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Formula (1) of Li).
Thus, the organic light emitting device comprising the Chemical Formula C-1 is not the closest prior art.
Secondly, the data is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
With respect to the commensurate in scope with claimed invention, the Examiner points out MPEP 716.02(d), as recited below.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
The only difference between the inventive Chemical Formula E-1 and the comparative Chemical Formula C-1 is the triphenyl germyl group which is substituted to the para position of the phenylene linker L1. However, the independent claim 1 and its dependent claims do not require the triphenyl germyl group to be substituted to the para position of the phenylene linker L1. The closest prior (i.e. Compound S-204 of Li) has a substituent such as triphenyl silyl group substituted to the ortho position of the phenylene linker, and the specific embodiments of Li are directed to the B- and O-containing polycyclic compound wherein a substituent substituted to the ortho position of the linker phenylene at the position corresponding to the L1 of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. Thus, the data is not commensurate with the instant claims.
Third, The fact that applicant has recognized another advantage (i.e. high current efficiency and high EQE) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior arts by Yao (i.e. high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility such that the OLED device comprising the compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE on page 5018, col. 1, paragraph 2 and in Conclusion on page 5023-5024) cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Fourth the high current efficiency and high EQE are not unexpected properties.
Yao teaches that the OLED device comprising the tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE compared to the OLED device comprising a tetraphenyl silane compound, otherwise same (page 5018, col. 1, paragraph 2; and Conclusion on page 5023-5024).
Thus, the high current efficiency and high EQE are expected properties for the compound of Li as modified by Yao, based on the teaching of Yao.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 11 of the reply filed 05/07/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-7 and 10 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘988) in view of Yao et al. (“Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025), the provisional rejections of claims 8 and 11 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘988) in view of Yao and Hatakeyama, the provisional rejection of claim 9 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 (reference application) in view of Yao, Hatakeyama and Seo set forth in the Office Action of 03/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that a terminal disclaimer is being filed such that the rejections need to be withdrawn.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
It appears that the terminal disclaimer filed on 05/11/2026 has not been approved. The rejections still reads on the limitation of the amended claims; thus, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant claims Chemical Formula E-3, wherein the polycyclic structure contains two cyclohexyl moieties,
PNG
media_image1.png
67
113
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. However, the independent claim 1 requires the polycyclic structure to be
PNG
media_image6.png
87
151
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, wherein X1 and X2 are each O. Thus, the Chemical Formula E-3 is not encompassed by the Chemical Formula 1. Currently claim 6 is dependent from claim 1. Claim 6 fails to incorporate all the limitations to which the claim refer.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0422617 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama) and Yao et al. (“Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025, hereafter Yao).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 and 10-11, Li discloses a compound used for an organic optoelectronic device ([0007] and exemplifies Compound S-204 ([0057]).
PNG
media_image2.png
373
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Li does not disclose a specific organic optoelectronic device comprising the Compound S-204 of Li as a blue host material.
PNG
media_image7.png
254
463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama discloses a B,O-containing polycyclic compound (Formulas (1) and (2)) used for an organic optoelectronic device ([0009]), wherein in Formula (1), rings A, B, and C can be each an aryl ring; Y1 can be B; X1 and X2 can be O; and the substituents of the rings A, B, and C can be hydrogen, an aryl, and an alkyl ([0009]). That is, Hatakeyama teaches the Compound S-204 of Li is the compound of Hatakeyama represented by the Formula (1).
Hatakeyama teaches a compound in which Y1 is B; and X1 and X2 are each O, is preferably used as a host material of the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device ([0044]). Hatakeyama teaches a known dopant compound can be used in the device ([0102]). Hatakeyama teaches a blue dopant having structure of perylene ([0103]). TBPe (2,5,8,11-tetra-tert-butylperylene) is a well-known commercially available blue dopant material having a perylene structure.
Hatakeyama teaches the structure of an organic optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode ([0085]).
Hatakeyama teaches the compound of Hatakeyama provides high band gap and high triplet excitation energy ([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 Compound S-204 of Li by incorporating it into an organic optoelectronic device as a blue host material with a blue dopant TBPe, as taught by Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a blue light emitting organic optoelectronic device using a commercially available dopant with high band gap and high triplet energy host material, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
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 optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound S-204 as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound S-204 of Li has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the tetraphenyl silane groups of the compound are required to be tetraphenyl germanium groups; however, silicon and germanium are obvious variants because they are in the same elemental group (i.e. Group IV). Furthermore, it is known in the art that a compound comprising a tetraphenyl germanium group provides benefits as compared to a compound comprising a tetraphenyl silane group, otherwise same.
Yao discloses a tetraphenyl germanium compound (DCzGe) used for an organic optoelectronic device (Abstract, Scheme 1).
Yao teaches that a tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility as compared to a tetraphenyl silane compound such that the OLED device comprising the tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE compared to the OLED device comprising a tetraphenyl silane compound, otherwise same (page 5018, col. 1, paragraph 2; and Conclusion on page 5023-5024).
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 S-204 of Li by substituting the tetraphenyl silane moieties with tetraphenyl germanium moieties (i.e. substitution of silicon atoms with germanium atoms), as taught by Yao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility such that the OLED device comprising the compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE based on the teaching of Yao.
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).
PNG
media_image8.png
410
635
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Li as modified by Yao, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 and 3-5.
The modification also provides Organic optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama and Yao comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound of Li as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 7-8 and 10-11.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0422617 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1) and Yao et al. (“Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the Organic optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama and Yao reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (“hole injection layer”), a second hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound of Li as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The device does not have a third hole transport layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “1st mixed region” between “light emitting region” and “hole transporting region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 of Li as modified by Hatakeyama and Yao by incorporating a mixed layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
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 optoelectronic device of Li as modified by Hatakeyama, Yao, and Seo comprising a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (“hole injection layer”), a second hole transport layer, a third hole transport layer (“mixed layer”), a light emitting layer (Compound of Li as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
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, 3-7 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘988) in view of Yao et al. (“Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025). 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, 3-7, and 10, Application ‘988 discloses a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a first compound of Formula 1 (claim 1).
Application ‘988 exemplifies Compound 1 (claim 13).
PNG
media_image9.png
390
613
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Application ‘988 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 1 of Application ‘988; however, Application ‘988 does teach the compound represented by Formula 1 can be used as the light emitting layer material (claim 1).
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 1 of Application ‘988 by incorporating it into the light emitting layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘988.
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 light emitting layer materials represented by Formula 1 of Application ‘988 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 device of Application ‘988 comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer comprising Compound 1 of Application ‘988, and a second electrode.
The Compound 1 of Application ‘988 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the tetraphenyl silane groups of the compound are required to be tetraphenyl germanium groups; however, silicon and germanium are obvious variants because they are in the same elemental group. It is also known in the art that a compound comprising tetraphenyl germanium group provides benefits as compared to a compound comprising tetraphenyl silane otherwise same structure.
Yao discloses a tetraphenyl germanium compound (DCzGe) used for an organic optoelectronic device (Abstract, Scheme 1).
Yao teaches that a tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility as compared to a tetraphenyl silane compound such that the OLED device comprising the tetraphenyl germanium compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE compared to the OLED device comprising tetraphenyl silane otherwise same (page 5018, col. 1, paragraph 2; and Conclusion on page 5023-5024).
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 1 of Application ‘988 by substituting the tetraphenyl silane moieties with tetraphenyl germanium moieties (i.e. substitution of silicon atoms with germanium atoms), as taught by Yao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high thermal and morphological stability, good solution processability, and high electron mobility such that the OLED device comprising the compound provides high luminance efficiency and high EQE based on the teaching of Yao.
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).
PNG
media_image10.png
369
513
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula E-1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 and 3-6.
The modification also provides Organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer containing the Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 7 and 10.
Claims 8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘988) in view of Yao et al. (“Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025) as applied to claims 1, 3-7 and 10 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, the Organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer containing the Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao, and a second electrode.
The device does not have a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron transport layer, and the device does not have blue dopant.
PNG
media_image7.png
254
463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama discloses a B,O-containing polycyclic compound (Formulas (1) and (2)) used for an organic optoelectronic device ([0009]), wherein in Formula (1), rings A, B, and C can be each an aryl ring; Y1 can be B; X1 and X2 can be O; and the substituents of the rings A, B, and C can be hydrogen, an aryl, and an alkyl ([0009]). That is, Hatakeyama teaches the Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao is the compound of Hatakeyama represented by Formula (1).
Hatakeyama teaches a compound in which Y1 is B; and X1 and X2 are each O, is preferably used as a host material of the light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device ([0044]). Hatakeyama teaches a known dopant compound can be used in the device ([0102]). Hatakeyama teaches a blue dopant having structure of perylene ([0103]). TBPe (2,5,8,11-tetra-tert-butylperylene) is a well-known commercially available blue dopant material having a perylene structure.
Hatakeyama teaches the structure of an organic optoelectronic device comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode ([0085]).
Hatakeyama teaches the compound of Hatakeyama provides high band gap and high triplet excitation energy ([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 Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao by incorporating it into an organic optoelectronic device as a blue host material with a blue dopant TBPe, as taught by Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a blue light emitting organic optoelectronic device using a commercially available dopant with high band gap and high triplet energy host material, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
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 optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao and Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application 18/104,988 (reference application) in view of Yao et al. (“Solution processed blue phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes using a Ge-based small molecular host”, J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, vol. 3, page 5017-5025) and Hatakeyama et al. (EP 3109253 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-8 and 10-11 above, further in view of Seo et al. (2002/0121860 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Organic optoelectronic device of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao and Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (“hole injection layer”), a second hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The device does not have a third hole transport layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “1st mixed region” between “light emitting region” and “hole transporting region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao and Hatakeyama by incorporating a mixed layer between the second hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
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 optoelectronic device of Wang as modified by Seo comprising a first electrode, a first hole transport layer (“hole injection layer”), a second hole transport layer, a third hole transport layer (“mixed layer”), a light emitting layer (Compound of Application ‘988 as modified by Yao as a blue host and TBPe as a blue dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
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