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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 20 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 1, 9, 12, and 20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1, hereafter Cho),
the rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1),
the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 above, further in view of Vo et al. (US 2015/0349267 A1, hereafter Vo),
the rejections of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 above, further in view of (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 35-40 of the reply filed 06/25/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho, the rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho/Vo, and the rejections of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho/Inoue set forth in the Office Action of 04/01/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections should be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The cited rejections refer to the Compound C-13 of Cho (see section 6 of the last Office Action) which does not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Cho is still applicable to make new grounds of rejection.
Cho discloses Compound C-13 ([0035]).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound C-13 of Cho does not have a silyl group substituted to the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R5 of Formula 1 of Cho (see the substituent pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Cho does teach that R5 and R6 can be a substituted C6 aryl and the substituent of the C6 aryl can be preferably a tri-C6-arylsilyl ([0032]). Cho exemplifies a triphenylsilyl group as the tri-C6-arylsilyl group (see examples in [0035] including at least Compound C-13).
Kim discloses a triazine compound substituted by dual triphenylsilyl groups and used as the host of an organic light emitting device (Abstract and DSiCzTrz in Scheme 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
208
301
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that dual triphenylsilyl groups provides minimized intermolecular interaction with the other host molecules (page 4030, col. 2, last 5 lines).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound C-13 of Cho by incorporating a triphenylsilyl group as the substituent of the phenyl group at R5 of Formula 1 of Cho, as taught by Cho and Kim.
The modification provides Compound of Cho as modified by Kim which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and Compound 37.
PNG
media_image3.png
411
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
New grounds of rejections are made. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 40-41 of the reply filed 06/25/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 9-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 11 of US Patent No. 12,250,874 (hereafter Patent ‘874), the rejections of claims 1 and 9-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 12,559,671 (hereafter Patent ‘671), the rejections of claims 1 and 9-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 12,514,112 (hereafter Patent ‘112), the provisional rejections of claims 1, 3, and 9-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application 17/827,788 (hereafter Application ‘788), the provisional rejections of claims 1 and 9-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 20 of copending Application 17/895,499 (hereafter Application ‘499), the provisional rejections of claims 1, 3, and 9-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 11 of copending Application 17/976,568 (hereafter Application ‘568), the provisional rejections of claims 1 and 9-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 20 of copending Application 18/090,671 (hereafter Application ‘671) set forth in the Office Action of 04/01/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that in view of the amendments, the claims should first be reconsidered based on the claims.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The cited rejections refer to ETH77, ETH77, ETH-43, ETH77, Compound 43, Compound 93, and Compound 107 (section 42, 50, 58, 66, 74, 82, 90 of the last Office Action), each of which reads on the limitation of the Formula 1 of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections are maintained.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
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 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1, hereafter Cho) in view of Kim et al. (“Extremely superb efficiency and lifetime of deep blue phosphorescent OLEDs by introducing a hypsochromic emissive intermolecular complex (HEIC) with a negligibly small ΔEST and fast reverse intersystem crossing rate” J. Mater. Chem. C 2021, vol. 9, page 4029-4038, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 9-20, Cho discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for a light emitting device ([0001], [0009]) and exemplifies Compound C-13 ([0035]).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound C-13 of Cho does not have a silyl group substituted to the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R5 of Formula 1 of Cho (see the substituent pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Cho does teach that R5 and R6 can be a substituted C6 aryl and the substituent of the C6 aryl can be preferably a tri-C6-arylsilyl ([0032]). Cho exemplifies a triphenylsilyl group as the tri-C6-arylsilyl group (see examples in [0035] including at least Compound C-13).
Kim discloses a triazine compound substituted by dual triphenylsilyl groups and used as the host of an organic light emitting device (Abstract and DSiCzTrz in Scheme 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
208
301
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that dual triphenylsilyl groups provides minimized intermolecular interaction with the other host molecules (page 4030, col. 2, last 5 lines).
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 C-13 of Cho by incorporating a triphenylsilyl group as the substituent of the phenyl group at R5 of Formula 1 of Cho, as taught by Cho and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide minimized intermolecular interaction with the other host molecules, based on the teaching of Kim.
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 the substituents of the phenyl group at R5 of Formula 1 of Cho 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 Cho as modified by Kim.
PNG
media_image3.png
411
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and Compound 37, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20.
Cho in view of Kim does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound of Cho as modified by Kim; however, Cho does teach that the compound of Cho can be used as the host material of the emission layer ([0042]).
Cho teaches the structure of a light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer contains the compound of Cho as a host and a phosphorescent dopant, Compound D-1 ([0107], [0066]).
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 Cho as modified by Kim by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Cho.
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 host compounds of Cho in the OLED of Cho 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 device of Cho as modified by Kim comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Cho as modified by Kim as a host, a phosphorescent Compound D-1 of Cho as a dopant), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the emission layer, and the electron injection layer are an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) in view of Kim et al. (“Extremely superb efficiency and lifetime of deep blue phosphorescent OLEDs by introducing a hypsochromic emissive intermolecular complex (HEIC) with a negligibly small ΔEST and fast reverse intersystem crossing rate” J. Mater. Chem. C 2021, vol. 9, page 4029-4038) as applied to claims 1-4 and 9-20 above, further in view of Vo et al. (US 2015/0349267 A1, hereafter Vo).
Regarding claim 5, Light emitting device of Cho as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Cho as modified by Kim as a host, a phosphorescent Compound D-1 of Cho as a dopant), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The device does not emit white light; however, Cho does teach that the device can emit white light by adding blue, red, and green dopants ([0071]). Cho exemplifies green and red dopants (see examples including at least D-86 and D-87 in [0066]).
Vo discloses blue phosphorescent compound used for a light emitting device ([0002], [0007]). Vo exemplifies Compound B4 ([0107]) emitting blue light (Example 1 in Table 1).
Vo teaches that a white emitting device can be formed by incorporating the compound of Vo and additional dopants emitting red and green colors ([0119]).
Vo teaches the compound of Vo provides high efficiency and improved lifetime ([0069]).
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 Light emitting device of Cho as modified by Kim by incorporating blue, green, and red dopants including the Compound B4 of Vo in the emission layer of the device, as taught by Cho and Vo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device with high efficiency and improved lifetime, based on the teaching of Vo.
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 device of Cho as modified by Vo comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Cho as modified by Kim as a host, Compound B4 of Vo as a blue dopant, green, and red dopants), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The device emits white light comprising blue, green, and red lights; thus, the emission layer of the device is to emit blue light.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2015/0126736 A1) in view of Kim et al. (“Extremely superb efficiency and lifetime of deep blue phosphorescent OLEDs by introducing a hypsochromic emissive intermolecular complex (HEIC) with a negligibly small ΔEST and fast reverse intersystem crossing rate” J. Mater. Chem. C 2021, vol. 9, page 4029-4038) as applied to claims 1-4 and 9-20 above, further in view of (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue).
Regarding claims 6-8, Light emitting device of Cho as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound of Cho as modified by Kim as a host, a phosphorescent Compound D-1 of Cho as a dopant), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
Cho does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Cho as modified by Kim and a thin film transistor.
Inoue discloses an electronic apparatus (“computer” in Fig. 7B2 and [0170], [0174]) which comprises a touch screen layer (7210 in Fig. 7B2 and [0174]).
Inoue teaches a display part of an electronic apparatus (“light-emitting device” in [0138] and Figs 2A and 2B) comprising a thin film transistor comprising source and drain electrodes (FET 611 in Figs 2A and 2B and [0142]), wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device (“light-emitting element”) is electrically connected to a drain of the thin film transistor.
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 Light emitting device of Cho as modified by Kim by incorporating it into the display part of an electronic apparatus containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Light emitting device of Cho as modified by Kim and a thin film transistor comprising source and drain electrodes, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode of the thin film transistor, as taught by Inoue.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the light emitting devices in an electronic apparatus 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 Electronic apparatus of Cho as modified by Inoue containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Light emitting device of Cho as modified by Kim and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source or drain electrode of the thin film transistor.
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, and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 11 of US Patent No. 12,250,874 (hereafter Patent ‘874). 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, 3, and 9-20, Patent ‘874 discloses a first host compound of Formula 6 and exemplifies Compound ETH77 (claim 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
359
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘874 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20.
Patent ‘874 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘874; however, Patent ‘874 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, and the host comprises a first host of Formula 6 (claim 8).
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 ETH77 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Patent ‘874.
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 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 Patent ‘874 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘874 as a host and a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1 and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 12,559,671 (hereafter Patent ‘671). 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 and 9-20, Patent ‘671 discloses a second compound and exemplifies Compound ETH77 (claim 10).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
359
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘671 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20.
Patent ‘671 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘671; however, Patent ‘671 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a second compound (claim 1), and the Compound ETH77 is an example of the second compound (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 Compound ETH77 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Patent ‘671.
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 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 Patent ‘671 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound ETH77 of Patent ‘671), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 1 and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of US Patent No. 12,514,112 (hereafter Patent ‘112). 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 and 9-20, Patent ‘112 discloses a first electron transport compound and exemplifies Compound ETH-43 (claim 10).
PNG
media_image5.png
296
355
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound ETH-43 of Patent ‘112 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20.
Patent ‘112 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound ETH-43 of Patent ‘112; however, Patent ‘112 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a first electron transport compound (claim 1), and the Compound ETH-43 is an example of the first electron transport compound (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 Compound ETH-43 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Patent ‘112.
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 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 Patent ‘112 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound ETH-43 of Patent ‘112), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, and 9-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application 17/827,788 (hereafter Application ‘788). 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, and 9-20, Application ‘788 discloses an electron transport host and exemplifies Compound ETH77 (claim 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
359
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound ETH77 of Application ‘788 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20.
Application ‘788 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound ETH77 of Application ‘788; however, Application ‘788 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises an electron transport host (claim 6) and a dopant, and the Compound ETH77 is an example of the electron transport host (claim 7).
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 ETH77 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device with a dopant, as taught by Application ‘788.
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 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 ‘788 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound ETH77 of Application ‘788 as a host, and a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1 and 9-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 20 of copending Application 17/895,499 (hereafter Application ‘499). 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 and 9-20, Application ‘499 discloses a heterocyclic Compound 43 (claim 20).
PNG
media_image6.png
244
195
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 43 of Application ‘499 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-20.
Application ‘499 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the heterocyclic Compound 43 of Application ‘499; however, Application ‘499 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the heterocyclic compound (claim 3), and the Compound 43 is an example of the heterocyclic compound of Formula 1 (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 43 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘499.
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 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 ‘499 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 43 of Application ‘499), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, and 9-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 11 of copending Application 17/976,568 (hereafter Application ‘568). 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, and 9-19, Application ‘568 discloses a polycyclic Compound 93 (claims 11).
PNG
media_image7.png
267
238
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound 93 of Application ‘568 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-19.
Application ‘568 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the heterocyclic Compound 93 of Application ‘568; however, Application ‘568 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the heterocyclic compound as a host and a dopant (claim 9), and the Compound 93 is an example of the polycyclic compound (claim 11).
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 93 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device as a host with a dopant, as taught by Application ‘568.
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 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 ‘568 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 93 of Application ‘568 as a host, and a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1 and 9-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 20 of copending Application 18/090,671 (hereafter Application ‘671). 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 and 9-19, Application ‘671 discloses a heterocyclic Compound 107 (claim 20).
PNG
media_image8.png
226
220
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Compound 107 of Application ‘671 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and embodiment 37 of the instant claim 20, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-19.
Application ‘671 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the heterocyclic Compound 107 of Application ‘671; however, Application ‘671 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the heterocyclic compound (claim 3), and the Compound 107 is an example of the heterocyclic compound (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 107 by incorporating it into the emission layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Application ‘671.
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 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 ‘671 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 107 of Application ‘671), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer is an interlayer, meeting all the limitations of claim 1.
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