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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 20 are amended and claim 15 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 05/14/2026. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 15 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 15 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 05/14/2026.
The rejection of claim 20 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 11-14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 7, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Geum and Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Geum and Jeong is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Geum and Yoon is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/14/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 22-26 of the reply dated 05/14/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 22-24, Applicant argues Hatakeyama’s compound 1-25 fails to read on the claims as amended which requires the sum of n1 and n2 to be an integer of 2 or more.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, while compound 1-25 alone fails to read on the amended claims, compound 1-25 may be modified within the scope of Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) to arrive at a compound of the claimed invention.
Applicant's argument –On pages 24-26, Applicant argues devices comprising the inventive compounds obtain unexpectedly improved driving voltage, emission efficiency, and operational lifetime in comparison to the prior art reference Hatakeyama. Particularly, Applicant points to Examples 1 to 5 comprising materials 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72, respectively and Additional Comparative Example 1 comprising Hatakeyama’s compound 1-383 for support (see Modified Table 3 of Declaration filed 05/22/2026). Applicant attributes the improved properties to the claimed E1 not being an alkyl group.
Examiner's response –Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Comparison with closest prior art
Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. As seen in the structures below, the instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 comprise a different structure than Hatakeyama’s compound 1-383. That is, the instant compounds differ from compound 1-383 by more than just the claimed E1.
PNG
media_image1.png
169
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
150
146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
197
228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
203
233
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
156
181
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
191
231
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Hatakeyama’s compound 1-383 contains cyano in the locations of the claimed Z1 and Z2 and unsubstituted carbazole in the location of Z3. In contrast, compound 14 comprises cyano-substituted phenyl in the locations of the claimed Z1 and Z2 and tert-butyl substituted carbazole in the location of Z3; compound 25 comprises unsubstituted pyridine in the locations of the claimed Z1 and Z2 and unsubstituted carbazole in the location of Z3; compound 49 comprises tert-butyl substituted carbazole in the locations of the claimed Z1 and Z2 and unsubstituted pyridine in the location of Z3; compound 57 comprises deuterium-substituted carbazole in the locations of the claimed Z1 and Z2 and cyano-substituted phenyl in the location of Z3; and compound 72 comprises unsubstituted carbazole in the locations of the claimed Z1 and Z2 and cyano in the location of Z3.
Given the differences discussed above, it is unclear whether the improved properties are truly due to the E1 group. For example, given that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect some degree of variability of properties between compounds having different structures, one of ordinary skill in the art could expect the cyano-substituted phenyl groups and the tert-butyl-substituted carbazole of compound 14 to affect the driving voltage, emission efficiency, and operational lifetime in comparison to compound 1-383, which does not include cyano-substituted phenyl groups and tert-butyl-substituted carbazole. Accordingly, it is unclear to what degree the difference in driving voltage, emission efficiency, and operational lifetime may be attributed to the E1 group and to what degree the difference may be attributed to other structural differences (such as the cyano-substituted phenyl groups and the tert-butyl-substituted carbazole in the case of compound 14).
As no explanation is provided for compounds having these different Z1 to Z3 groups, it is unclear if a comparison between compounds comprising the same structure of compound (1-383) (containing cyano in the locations of the claimed Z1 and Z2 and unsubstituted carbazole in the location of Z3) that also contains a claimed E1 group (i.e., not an alkyl group) would obtain the same results discussed by Applicant. Accordingly, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
However, even if a comparison to the closest prior art was made with respect to compound 1-383, Hatakeyama also teaches compound 1-25, as discussed below and in the previous rejection.
PNG
media_image7.png
200
230
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Like compound 1-383, a comparison to the closest prior art has not been made with respect to compound 1-25. Compound 1-25 contains a N-Ph2 group in the location of Z1, contains no Z2 group, and contains a cyano in the location of Z3. However, unlike compound 1-383, compound 1-25 anticipates the claimed E1, wherein E1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the E1 groups of compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 provide unexpected results over compound 1-25.
It should also be noted that more than one difference exists between Hatakeyama’s compound 1-25 and compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72. For example, compound 1-25 contains a Z1 group of N-Ph2, a phenyl group in the locations of R2,R4, and E1, and a cyano group in the location of Z3. In contrast, none of compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 contain a Z1 group of N-Ph2 or a phenyl group in the locations of R2 and R4. Additionally, compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 each contain two phenyl groups in the location of E1 (i.e., k1 is 2).
As no explanation is provided for compounds having these different structures, it is unclear if a comparison between compounds comprising the same structure of compound 1-25 and also contains a Z2 group would obtain the same results discussed by Applicant. Accordingly, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Commensurate in Scope
As the claims claim a broad compound structure but the compounds discussed (compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72) only recite five specific structures, the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, as discussed above, Hatakeyama teaches compound 1-383 which contains cyano in the locations of the claimed Z1 and Z2 and unsubstituted carbazole in the location of Z3. Hatakeyama also teaches compound 1-25 which contains a Z1 group of N-Ph2, a phenyl group in the locations of R2,R4, and E1, and a cyano group in the location of Z3. These are within the scope of the claims. As there are no results comprising the compound structure of the prior art, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present.
Additionally, the data shown in the Modified Table 3 is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that the data is shown for the use of a compound in the emission layer of a device, whereas the claims 11-14 and 16-20 are directed to a compound. The improved properties of driving voltage, emission efficiency, and operational lifetime are shown when the inventive compounds are used in an emission layer of an OLED, wherein the emission layer further comprises compounds HTH53, ETH85, and PD40 (see instant ¶ [00526]). None of these limitations are required by the claims. No evidence has been provided to show that the unexpected results would be present for the use of the inventive compounds in other layers or with other compounds present in the same layer.
Unexpected Results
While there is improvement in driving voltage, emission efficiency, and operational lifetime between the instant devices and device comprising Hatakeyama’s compound 1-383, it is unclear whether these performances are truly unexpected.
As discussed further in the rejection below, Geum teaches a compound represented by Formula 1 provides an organic light emitting device with excellent light emitting efficiency, low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long service life (¶ [0012] and [0020]). A compound that reads on Geum’s Formula 1 would necessarily meet the limitations of the claimed E1, as the claims recite E1 may be a C6-C60 carbocyclic group of a C4-C60 heterocyclic group. Given the teachings of Geum, it is unclear whether the degree of improvement shown by the data in the Declaration is truly unexpected.
Applicant's argument –On page 26, Applicant argues the exclusion of an alkyl group from the list of E1 is one of the insights gained by the inventions, and this insight is not taught or suggested in Hatakeyama.
Examiner's response –It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicant's argument –On page 26, Applicant argues there is no technical motivation—absent impermissible hindsight—to modify Hatakeyama’s compound 1-383 to exclude the alkyl substituent at the position corresponding to E1. Applicant argues Hatakeyama provides no teaching or suggestion that such a modification would improve, or even maintain, device performance.
Examiner's response –As discussed below and in the previous rejection, while Hatakeyama alone does not provide motivation to arrive at a compound of the claimed invention, Geum provides motivation to modify Hatakeyama’s compound 1-383 with phenyl groups in the location of E1 to obtain the benefits of excellent light emitting efficiency, low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long service life (see Geum, ¶ [0012] and [0020]). Accordingly, Hatakeyama in view of Geum teach a compound of the claimed invention. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 IV.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-14, and 16-19, Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element having excellent luminous efficiency and life by including a cyano-substituted polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0012] and [0642]). The organic EL element has a structure of: anode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, light emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer, and cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises 0.1 to 10% by weight of the polycyclic aromatic compound of general formula (1) based on the total weight of the light emitting layer (¶ [0009], [0234], and [0250]). Hatakeyama teaches examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) including compound 1-25 (pg. 54).
Hatakeyama fails to teach a device specifically comprising compound 1-25.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 1-25 in a device having the structure as described above, wherein the light emitting layer comprises 0.1 to 10% by weight of compound 1-25, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hatakeyama according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with excellent luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
(1):
PNG
media_image8.png
113
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
1-25:
PNG
media_image9.png
63
31
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-25 fails to include an electron donating group in the location of the claimed Z2. However, in formula (1), Hatakeyama teaches rings A to C may each be substituted, wherein examples thereof include N(Ph)2 as shown in compound 1-251 (¶ [0012]; structure on pg. 67).
1-251:
PNG
media_image10.png
69
67
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Hatakeyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phenyl substituent
PNG
media_image9.png
63
31
media_image9.png
Greyscale
with N(Ph)2 as shown in compound 1-251
PNG
media_image10.png
69
67
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, because Hatakeyama teaches a substituent of ring C may suitably be selected as N(Ph)2. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the light emitting layer of the device of Hatakeyama and possess the benefits taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 1-25 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
1:
PNG
media_image11.png
347
485
media_image11.png
Greyscale
modified 1-25:
PNG
media_image12.png
387
533
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 1-25 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
CY1 to CY3 are each a C6 carbocyclic group;
X1 is N(R4);
Y1 is B;
Z1 and Z2 are each an electron donating group that is -N(R6)(R7) (claim 16);
Z3 is an electron withdrawing group of cyano;
n1 to n3 are each 1;
R1 to R3, and R5 are not required to be present, and R4, R6, and R7 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (claim 13);
d1 to d3 are each 0;
Ar1 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
E1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (claim 12);
k1 is 1 (claim 12); and
R10a is not required to be present.
As the π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group and the π electron-rich C3-C60 cyclic group are not required to be present, the limitations of claim 14 are met.
Additionally, the CY1-CY2 moiety is represented by Formula 2-2 (claim 17) and the CY3 moiety is represented by Formula 3-2 (claim 18).
Per claim 7, Hatakeyama appears silent with respect to the emission layer emitting light having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm. Additionally, per claim 19, Hatakeyama appears silent with respect to the modified compound 1-25 having a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less.
The instant specification recites emission layers including the condensed cyclic compound represented by instant Formula 1 may emit blue light, which may have a maximum emission wavelength of about 400 nm to about 500 nm (¶ [00192]). The instant specification further recites emission layers including instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 (which are compounds of the instant Formula 1) have a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm (see Table 3 on instant pgs. 134-135).
Additionally, the instant specification recites that the compound represented by Formula 1 may have a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less (see instant ¶ [00112]-[00118]). The instant further recites instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 (which are compounds of the instant Formula 1) each have a HOMO -4.80 eV or less and a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less (see Table 2 on instant pg. 131).
Since Hatakeyama teaches the modified compound 1-25, which is a compound that reads on the instant Formula 1 as discussed above and is substantially identical in structure to instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72, the emission layer comprising the modified compound 1-25 emitting light having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Additionally, the modified compound 1-25 having a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per claim 8, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 8 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or condensed cyclic compound. Hatakeyama teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Hatakeyama according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Hatakeyama teaches the device including the modified compound 1-25 in the light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 3.
Hatakeyama fails to teach the light emitting layer further includes a hole-transporting compound, an electron-transporting compound, or a metal-containing compound. However, Hatakeyama does teach the polycyclic aromatic compound of general formula (1) is a fluorescent material (¶ [0047]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes a host that is a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host and a dopant that includes both a phosphorescent dopant that is a transition metal complex and a fluorescent dopant (abstract; ¶ [0017]). Such a device results in a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance (¶ [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transport host in the light emitting layer of the device of Hatakeyama and to further include a phosphorescent dopant that is a transition metal complex to provide a device with a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance, as taught by Kim.
The hole transporting host reads on the claimed first compound, the electron transporting host reads on the claimed second compound, and the phosphorescent dopant reads on the claimed third compound.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Hatakeyama teaches the apparatus including the modified compound 1-25 in the light emitting layer of claim 8, as described above.
Hatakeyama fails to teach an electronic apparatus comprising the OLED and a thin-film transistor.
Jeong teaches a light emitting display device including a thin film transistor (TNT) and a light emitting diode, wherein the TNT includes an N-type oxide semiconductor layer, a source electrode, and a drain electrode (abstract and col. 2 lines 64-67). Jeong teaches the cathode electrode of the OLED may electrically contact the drain electrode of the TFT (col. 6, lines 54-58). As the cathode is electrically connected to the anode, the anode would also be electrically connected to the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches the light emitting display including the TNT substantially overcomes one or more of the problems of the related art, which includes low mobility of the semiconductor layer, leakage current, and increased contact resistance (col. 1, 12-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device of Hatakeyama as the OLED of the light emitting display device of Jeong, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong, and to obtain a device having excellent luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents).
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama teaches the apparatus including the modified compound 1-25 in the light emitting layer of claim 8, as described above.
Hatakeyama fails to teach wherein the device further includes a color conversion layer or color filter layer.
Yoon teaches an organic light emitting diode display device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection (abstract). This device comprises a first substrate 210 that includes a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and a second substrate 260 facing the first substrate (first half of pg. 3, first half of pg. 4, and Fig. 4). A color filter layer 220 is located between the organic light emitting diode 240 and the first substrate 210, and corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions (middle of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4). An antireflective layer 230 includes a color conversion pattern 232, which is located between the first substrate 210 and organic light emitting diode (bottom of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide in the device of Hatakeyama a substrate comprising a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and to further provide in the device a second substrate, a color filter layer located between the device and the substrate, and an antireflective layer including a color conversion pattern located between the substrate and the device, as shown in Yoon’s Fig. 4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection, as taught by Yoon.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-20, Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element having excellent luminous efficiency and life by include a cyano-substituted polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0012] and [0642]). The organic EL element has a structure of: anode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, light emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer, and cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises 0.1 to 10% by weight of the polycyclic aromatic compound of general formula (1) based on the total weight of the light emitting layer (¶ [0009], [0234], and [0250]). Hatakeyama teaches examples thereof including compound 1-383 (pg. 74).
Hatakeyama fails to teach a device specifically comprising compound 1-383.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 1-383 in a device having the structure as described above, wherein the light emitting layer comprises 0.1 to 10% by weight of compound 1-383, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hatakeyama according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with excellent luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
(1):
PNG
media_image8.png
113
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
1-383:
PNG
media_image13.png
128
157
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-383 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it includes an alkyl group in the location of the claimed E1. However, Hatakeyama does teach in general formula (1) that X1 and X2 may each be N-R wherein R may be a substituted aryl (¶ [0012]).
Geum teaches a compound represented by Formula 1 provides an organic light emitting device having excellent light emitting efficiency, low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long service life (¶ [0012] and [0020]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include the compound below on page 28.
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image14.png
147
459
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Geum’s compound:
PNG
media_image15.png
175
254
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in compound 1-383, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute each of the t-butyl-substituted phenyl groups in the location of R with terphenyl groups, as shown in Geum’s compound above, to arrive at a compound represented by Geum’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Geum. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with excellent light emitting efficiency, low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long service life, as taught by Geum.
The modified compound 1-383 reads on Geum’s Formula 1 wherein: Cy1 and Cy2 are each a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring; R1 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group, R2, R3, R5, and R8 are each hydrogen, and R4, R6, R7, an R9 are not required to be present; m1 is 1 and m2 and m3 are each 5; Z1 to Z4 are each CH; and n1 and n2 are each 2 (see Geum, ¶ [0012]-[0017]). Accordingly, the modified compound 1-383 is expected to obtain the benefits of Geum.
The modified compound 1-383 is reproduced below in comparison the claimed Formula 1.
1:
PNG
media_image11.png
347
485
media_image11.png
Greyscale
modified 1-383:
PNG
media_image16.png
323
438
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 1-383 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
CY1 to CY3 are each a C6 carbocyclic group;
X1 is N(R4);
Y1 is B;
Z1 and Z2 are each an electron withdrawing group of cyano (claim 15);
Z3 is an electron donating group that is a π electron-rich C12 cyclic group of carbazole (claim 14);
n1 to n3 are each 1 (claim 15);
R1 to R3 and R5 to R7 are not required to be present, and R4 is an unsubstituted C18 carbocyclic group (claim 13);
d1 to d3 are each 0;
Ar1 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
E1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (claim 12);
k1 is an integer of 2 (claim 12); and
R10a is not required to be present.
Additionally, the CY1-CY2 moiety reads on Formula 2-2 (claim 17); the CY3 moiety reads on the Formula 3-2 (claim 18); and the modified compound 1-383 reads on the claimed compound 40 (claim 20).
Per claim 8, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 8 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or condensed cyclic compound. Hatakeyama in view of Geum teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Hatakeyama in view of Geum according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Per claim 7, Hatakeyama in view of Geum appear silent with respect to the emission layer emitting light having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm. Additionally, per claim 19, Hatakeyama in view of Geum appear silent with respect to the modified compound 1-383 having a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less.
The instant specification recites emission layers including the condensed cyclic compound represented by instant Formula 1 may emit blue light, which may have a maximum emission wavelength of about 400 nm to about 500 nm (¶ [00192]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include instant compound 40 (see instant pg. 25). The instant specification further recites emission layers including instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 (which are compounds of the instant Formula 1) have a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm (see Table 3 on instant pgs. 134-135).
Additionally, the instant specification recites that the compound represented by Formula 1 may have a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less (see instant ¶ [00112]-[00118]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include instant compound 40 (see instant pg. 25). The instant further recites instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 (which are compounds of the instant Formula 1) each have a HOMO -4.80 eV or less and a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less (see Table 2 on instant pg. 131).
Since Hatakeyama in view of Geum teach the modified compound 1-383, which is a compound that reads on the instant Formula 1 as discussed above, is identical in structure to the instant compound 40 disclosed by the Applicant, and is substantially identical in structure to instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72, the emission layer comprising the modified compound 1-383 emitting light having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Additionally, the modified compound 1-383 having a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Hatakeyama in view of Geum teach the device including the modified compound 1-383 in the light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 3.
Hatakeyama in view of Geum fail to teach the light emitting layer further includes a hole-transporting compound, an electron-transporting compound, or a metal-containing compound. However, Hatakeyama does teach the polycyclic aromatic compound is a fluorescent material (¶ [0047]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes a host that is a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host and a dopant that includes both a phosphorescent dopant that is a transition metal complex and a fluorescent dopant (abstract; ¶ [0017]). Such a device results in a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance (¶ [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transport host in the light emitting layer of the device of Hatakeyama in view of Geum and to further include a phosphorescent dopant that is a transition metal complex to provide a device with a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance, as taught by Kim.
The hole transporting host reads on the claimed first compound, the electron transporting host reads on the claimed second compound, and the phosphorescent dopant reads on the claimed third compound.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Hatakeyama in view of Geum teaches the apparatus including the modified compound 1-383 in the light emitting layer of claim 8, as described above.
Hatakeyama in view of Geum fails to teach an electronic apparatus comprising the OLED and a thin-film transistor.
Jeong teaches a light emitting display device including a thin film transistor (TNT) and a light emitting diode, wherein the TNT includes an N-type oxide semiconductor layer, a source electrode, and a drain electrode (abstract and col. 2 lines 64-67). Jeong teaches the cathode electrode of the OLED may electrically contact the drain electrode of the TFT (col. 6, lines 54-58). As the cathode is electrically connected to the anode, the anode would also be electrically connected to the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches the light emitting display including the TNT substantially overcomes one or more of the problems of the related art, which includes low mobility of the semiconductor layer, leakage current, and increased contact resistance (col. 1, 12-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the device of Hatakeyama in view of Geum as the OLED of the light emitting display device of Jeong, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong, and to obtain a device having excellent luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents).
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama in view of Geum teaches the apparatus including the modified compound 1-383 in the light emitting layer of claim 8, as described above.
Hatakeyama in view of Geum fail to teach wherein the device further includes a color conversion layer or color filter layer.
Yoon teaches an organic light emitting diode display device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection (abstract). This device comprises a first substrate 210 that includes a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and a second substrate 260 facing the first substrate (first half of pg. 3, first half of pg. 4, and Fig. 4). A color filter layer 220 is located between the organic light emitting diode 240 and the first substrate 210, and corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions (middle of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4). An antireflective layer 230 includes a color conversion pattern 232, which is located between the first substrate 210 and organic light emitting diode (bottom of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide in the device of Hatakeyama in view of Geum a substrate comprising a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and to further provide in the device a second substrate, a color filter layer located between the device and the substrate, and an antireflective layer including a color conversion pattern located between the substrate and the device, as shown in Yoon’s Fig. 4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection, as taught by Yoon.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights