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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A2 (Formula 5, claims 1, 2, 5-13, and 16-20), in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Regarding the Requirement of Species Election Office Action of 05/28/2026, Applicant argues that Applicant can provide the structure of a compound encompassed by Formula 1 that is different from any one of Species A1 through A3 such that it is unclear whether the Restriction Requirements accounts for all of the embodiments presently recited in the claims (see page 2-4 of Response to Election/Restriction of 08/26/2026).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The Examiner acknowledges that there may be some structures which are not fell in any one of selectable options (A1) through (A3); however, the fact that there exists some embodiments which are not fell in one of the selectable options cannot be the reason to withdraw the requirement of species election. The reason may be, but not limited to: 1) the species described in (A1) through (A3) are not district or independent, or 2) there is no burden to search the species described in (A1) through (A3) together. Applicant fails to provide none of the reasons 1) and 2) above, or any reasonable explanation that the species are not distinct or independent.
Additionally, the selectable options that the Requirement of species election of 08/26/2026 provided are complete such that Applicant could select one of the provided options to represent Applicant’s invention. For example, the Office Action recites “Alternatively, Applicant can provide the structure of the compound of Formula 1 which is different from any one of (A1) through (A3), and fully supported by the specification, wherein the structure of the compound is identified at the atomic level.” If Applicant wanted to elect a species that is not fell in one of selectable options (A1) through (A3), Applicant could provide a structural formula that Applicant wants to elect.
Therefore, there is no embodiment or inventive compound that cannot be elected from the options that the Requirement of species election provided. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive to withdraw the Requirement of species election.
Nonetheless, the Examiner found there be no burden to search the previous species (A2) and (A3), as well as a compound of Formula 1, wherein R3 is a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl after further search and consideration. Additionally, the Examiner found there be no burden to search Formula 3-1 of claim 3 which is broader and more general structure of the compound of Formula 4 of claim 4.
Accordingly, the species election is updated as follows:
The structure of (R3)n3 of Formula 1 is specified by selecting one of (B1) to (B3):
(B1) the fused polycyclic compound is represented by Formula 3-1 of claim 3.
(B2) the fused polycyclic compound is represented by Formula 1 of claim 1, wherein R3 is hydrogen, deuterium, a halogen, a cyano, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, or a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl, and n3 is an integer of 1 to 4.
(B3) the fused polycyclic compound is represented by Formula 1 of claim 1, wherein the compound is not any one of (B1) and (B2) above.
The species are independent or distinct because the selection of the structure of (R3)n3 with respect to the core structure would yield compounds having mutually different chemical, physical, and optoelectronic properties. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) due to the different structures of the compounds. For example, a compound of Formula 1, wherein the structure of (R3)n3 is an N-substituted carbazolyl requires different search strategies than a compound of Formula 1, wherein the structure of (R3)n3 is hydrogen, deuterium, a halogen, a cyano, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, or substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group.
Applicant’s election of species (A2) is now equated with the updated species (B2). Claims 4 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group (emphasis added).
Examiner’s Note
While claims 4 and 15 are withdrawn as outlined above, the claims are indefinite such that it could be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when the claims are examined later. Regarding claims 4 and 15, Applicant recites “R21 to R28 are each independently hydrogen, deuterium, …(presentation of a list of substituents are omitted here) …, or are bonded to an adjacent group to form a ring, at least one pair selected from among adjacent pairs of R21 to R28 are … fused”. As written, it is unclear whether R21 to R28 can be selected to any one of the list of substituents such as hydrogen, or at least one pair of R21 to R28 is required to be fussed to be Formula 4-A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1, hereafter Jeong).
Regarding claims 1-2, 7, 12-13 and 18, Jeong discloses a compound used for a light emitting device ([0012], Formula 1 in [0046]) and exemplifies Compound 425 ([0059]).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 425 of Jeong has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R9 of Formula 1 of Jeong is required to be a dibenzofuran, dibenzothiophene, carbazole, or fluorene group; however, Jeong does teach that the substituent at the position corresponding to R9 can be a group of Formula 4, wherein X3 can be O, S, NR’, or CR’R” ([0057]-[0058]) and exemplifies dibenzofuran (see examples in [0059] including at least Compounds 111, 327, and 485).
PNG
media_image2.png
129
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The instant claims require the dibenzofuran group to be bonded to the B,N-containing heterocycle via the substitution position 4 of the dibenzofuran group (see the annotated numbers in the figure above) while the Compound 425 of Jeong does that via the substitution position 1 of the dibenzofuran group; however, Jeong does teach that the group of Formula 4 can bond to the B,N-containing heterocycle via any one of four substitution positions of the benzene ring of the Formula 4 ([0057]).
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 425 of Jeong by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R9 of Formula 1 of Jeong with a dibenzofuran group substituted via the position 4 of the group, as taught by Jeong.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified substituent groups from phenyl to dibenzofuran at the position corresponding to R9 of Formula 1 of Jeong would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are only four different substitution positions for the dibenzofuran group. The selection of position 4 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Additionally, a compound substituted by a dibenzofuran group via the substitution position 4 is a position isomer of a compound substituted by a dibenzofuran group via any one of positions 1 to 3. See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
PNG
media_image3.png
364
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Jeong (1), which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-13 and18.
Jeong does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Modified compound of Jeong (1); however, Jeong does teach that the compound of Jeong can be used as the dopant of a light emitting device ([0060]). Jeong teaches the structure of a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer comprising the compound of Jeong as a dopant with a host, a second electrode ([0194]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Jeong (1) to incorporate it into the emission layer as a dopant with a host in a light emitting device, as taught by Jeong.
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 dopants represented by Formula 1 of Jeong in the device of Jeong 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 Jeong (1) comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Modified compound of Jeong (1) as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 7.
Regarding claims 3, 5-6, 14, and 16-17, the Modified light emitting device of Jeong (1) and the Modified compound of Jeong (1) reads on all the features of claims 1 and 13 as outlined above.
The device comprises comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Modified compound of Jeong (1) as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode.
The Modified compound of Jeong (1) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 6-1. The only difference is that the hydrogen atom at the position corresponding to R6 of Formula 1 of Jeong is required to be a dibenzofuran group; however, Jeong does teach that the substituent at the position corresponding to R6 can be a group of Formula 4, wherein X3 can be O ([0057]-[0058]). Jeong further teaches that the substituents at the positions R6 and R9 can be same to be a symmetric molecule (see examples in [0059] including at least Compound 337 and 297).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Jeong (1) by incorporating a dibenzofuran group via the substitution position 4 of the dibenzofuran at the position corresponding to R6 of Formula 1 of Jeong, as taught by Jeong.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified substituent groups from hydrogen to dibenzofuran at the position corresponding to R6 of Formula 1 of Jeong would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The instant claims require the dibenzofuran group to be substituted via the position 4 of the dibenzofuran group; however, Jeong does teach that the group of Formula 4 can bond to the B,N-containing heterocycle via any one of four substitution positions of the benzene ring of the Formula 4 ([0057]). There are only four different substitution positions for the dibenzofuran group to substitute. The selection of position 4 would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Additionally, a compound substituted by a dibenzofuran group via the substitution position 4 is a position isomer of a compound substituted by a dibenzofuran group via any one of positions 1 to 3. See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
The modification provide Modified compound of Jeong (3), meeting all the limitations of claims 14 and 16-17.
PNG
media_image4.png
316
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Modified light emitting device of Jeong (3) comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Modified compound of Jeong (3) as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 3 and 5-6.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-14, and 16-18 above, further in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1, hereafter Geum).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the Modified light emitting device of Jeong (1) and the Modified compound of Jeong (1) reads on all the features of claims 1 and 13 as outlined above.
The device comprises comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Modified compound of Jeong (1) as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode.
The Modified compound of Jeong (1) has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 8-2. The only difference is that the biphenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong are each required to be a m-terphenyl group; however, Jeong does teach that R12 can be an aryl group ([0047]) and exemplifies terphenyl as the aryl group ([0027]).
Geum discloses a B,N-containing heterocyclic compound having ortho phenyl groups and used for a light emitting device ([0011]-[0012]).
Geum exemplifies m-terphenyl (i.e. the parts enclosed by dashed circle in the figure below) as the ortho substituted phenyl bonded to the nitrogen atoms of the B,N-containing heterocycle (Formula 1-1-3 in [0130], see examples in [0188] including at least the following compound (page 28)).
PNG
media_image5.png
271
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Geum teaches that the ortho substituted phenyl group prevents aggregation of molecules, minimizes stacking, provides large volume, inhibits intermolecular interaction, prevents exciton annihilation such that it provides high efficiency and long life for the light emitting device comprising the compound ([0037], [0039]-[0041]). An ordinary skill would expect the m-terphenyl group provides larger molecular volume, higher intermolecular interaction, and more effective results than biphenyl because the m-terphenyl possesses two ortho substituted phenyl such that it is bulkier than biphenyl.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Jeong (1) by substituting the biphenyl group at the position corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong with m-terphenyl (i.e. 2,6-diphenyl-substituted phenyl), as taught by Jeong and Geum.
The motivation of doing so would have been to prevent aggregation of molecules, minimize stacking, provide large volume, inhibit intermolecular interaction, prevent exciton annihilation such that it provides high efficiency and long life for the light emitting device comprising the compound, based on the teaching of Geum.
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 biphenyl with terphenyl at the positions corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Additionally, the compounds of Geum are eventually directed to three different configurations of ortho substituents (Formulae 2-1-1 to 2-1-3 in [0178]). The selection of the ortho configuration represented by Formula 2-1-3 of Geum would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum, meeting all the limitations of claim 19.
PNG
media_image6.png
307
639
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Light emitting device of Jeong as modified by Geum comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum, as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claim 8.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-14, and 16-18 above, further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0104682 A1, hereafter Shin).
Regarding claims 10-11, the Modified light emitting device of Jeong (1) and the Modified compound of Jeong (1) reads on all the features of claims 1 and 13 as outlined above.
The device comprises comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Modified compound of Jeong (1) as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode.
The device does not comprise specific cohosts and a Pt sensitizer; however, Jeong does teach that the emission layer of the device can further include other materials than the compound of Jeong ([0062]-[0063]).
Shin discloses a light emitting device comprising a first compound, a second compound, a third compound, and a fourth compound ([0012]). The Modified compound of Jeong (1) is directed to the fourth compound of Shin because it is encompassed by the general Formula 4 of the fourth compound of Shin ([0093]).
Shin exemplifies HT-09 as the first compound, ET-8 as the second compound, Compound 9 as the third compound (Example 1 in Table 1 and [0101]).
PNG
media_image7.png
332
844
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compounds HT-09, ET-8, and 9 of Shin have identical structure as Applicant’s Formula HT-1, ET-1, and D-1 of the instant claims.
Shin teaches that the device of Shin provides high efficiency and longer lifetime ([0005]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Jeong (1) by incorporating Compound HT-09 as a host, Compound ET-8 as a host, Compound 9 as a sensitizer, and the Modified compound of Jeong (1) as a dopant into the emission layer, as taught by Jeong and Shin.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency and longer lifetime, based on the teaching of Shin.
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 Jeong as modified by Shin comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound HT-09 of Shin as a host, Compound ET-8 as a host, Compound 9 as a sensitizer, and Modified compound of Jeong (1) as a dopant), and a second electrode.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2021/0062078 A1, hereafter Kato) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 12-14, 16-17, and 19, Kato discloses a compound of Formula 1 used for a light emitting device, wherein at least one of R1 to R8 of the Formula 1 is substituted by a -L1-HAr group ([0006]-[0019]). Kato exemplifies a compound (the 6th compound of page 40, hereafter Compound p40-6).
PNG
media_image8.png
354
629
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Compound p40-6 has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, the only difference is that the phenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R12 and R13 of Formula 1 of Kato are each required to be a biphenyl or terphenyl group (or phenyl-substituted phenyl); however, Kato does teach that R12 and R13 can be each an unsubstituted aryl group ([0010]). Kato exemplifies an m-terphenyl group as the unsubstituted aryl group ([0045]). Alternatively, Kato teaches that the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R12 and R13 can be further substituted by additional substituent(s) such as an aryl group ([0031]) and exemplifies phenyl as the aryl group ([0045]), indicating the substituent at R12 and R13 can be each a terphenyl.
Geum discloses a B,N-containing heterocyclic compound having ortho phenyl groups and used for a light emitting device ([0011]-[0012]).
Geum exemplifies m-terphenyl (i.e. the parts enclosed by dashed circle in the figure below) as the ortho substituted phenyl bonded to the nitrogen atoms of the B,N-containing heterocycle (Formula 1-1-3 in [0130], see examples in [0188] including at least the following compound on page 28).
PNG
media_image5.png
271
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Geum teaches that the ortho substituted phenyl group prevents aggregation of molecules, minimizes stacking, provides large volume, inhibits intermolecular interaction, prevents exciton annihilation such that it provides high efficiency and long life for the light emitting device comprising the compound ([0037], [0039]-[0041]). An ordinary skill would expect the m-terphenyl group provides larger molecular volume, higher intermolecular interaction, and more effective results than biphenyl because the m-terphenyl possesses two ortho substituted phenyl which is bulkier than biphenyl.
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 p40-6 of Kato by substituting the phenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R12 and R13 of Formula 1 of Kato each with a m-terphenyl group, as taught by Kato and Geum.
The motivation of doing so would have been to prevent aggregation of molecules, minimize stacking, provide large volume, inhibit intermolecular interaction, prevent exciton annihilation such that it provides high efficiency and long life for the light emitting device comprising the compound, based on the teaching of Geum.
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 phenyl with m-terphenyl at the positions corresponding to R12 and R13 of Formula 1 of Kato would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image9.png
333
663
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Kato as modified by Geum, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-14, 16-17, and 19.
Kato does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Modified compound of Kato; however, Kato does teach that the compound of Kato can be used as the dopant of a light emitting device ([0131]). Kato teaches the structure of a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer comprising the compound of Kato as a dopant with a host, a second electrode ([0415]-[0420]).
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 Kato as modified by Geum to incorporate it into the emission layer as a dopant with a host in a light emitting device, as taught by Kato.
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 dopants represented by Formula 1 of Kato in the device of Kato 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 Kato as modified by Geum comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Kato as modified by Geum as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8.
Regarding claims 7, 9, 18, and 20, the Light emitting device of Kato as modified by Geum and the Compound of Kato as modified by Geum reads on all the features of claims 1 and 13 as outlined above.
The device comprises comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Kato as modified by Geum as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode.
The Compound of Kato as modified by Geum has similar structure as Applicant’s embodiment Compound 3 of claims 9 and 20, the only difference is that the hydrogen atom at the positions corresponding to R10 of Formula 1 of Kato is required to be a t-butyl group; however, Kato does teach that R10 can be each an alkyl group ([0010]) and exemplifies a t-butyl group as the alkyl group ([0037]). Kato exemplifies the following compound, wherein Kato teaches the substitution position R10 to substitute an alkyl group to the B,N-containing heterocycle ([0124]; the 8th compound on page 12, hereafter Compound p12-8). Additionally, an isopropyl group of is a homolog of a t-butyl group. An ordinary skill in the art would expect that isopropyl and t-butyl would act in similar manner. See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
PNG
media_image10.png
338
625
media_image10.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Kato as modified by Geum by substituting the hydrogen atom at the positions corresponding to R10 of Formula 1 of Kato with a t-butyl group, as taught by Kato.
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 hydrogen with a t-butyl group at the positions corresponding to R10 of Formula 1 of Kato 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 Kato as modified by Geum (2) which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 3, meeting all the limitations of claims 18 and 20.
PNG
media_image11.png
334
677
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Light emitting device of Kato as modified by Geum (2) comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Kato as modified by Geum (2) as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 7 and 9.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2021/0062078 A1) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, and 16-20 above, further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0104682 A1).
Regarding claims 10-11, the Light emitting device of Kato as modified by Geum and the Compound of Kato as modified by Geum reads on all the features of claims 1 and 13 as outlined above.
The device comprises comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound of Kato as modified by Geum as a dopant, and a host), and a second electrode.
The device does not comprise specific cohosts and a Pt sensitizer; however, Kato does teach a heterocyclic compound can be used as the fluorescent host material ([0344]) and Kato further teaches that the emission layer can contain two or more dopants and two or more host materials ([0323]).
Shin discloses a light emitting device comprising a first compound, a second compound, a third compound, and a fourth compound ([0012]). The Compound of Kato as modified by Geum is directed to the fourth compound of Shin because it is encompassed by the general Formula 4 of the fourth compound of Shin ([0093]).
Shin exemplifies HT-09 as the first compound, ET-8 as the second compound, Compound 9 as the third compound (Example 1 in Table 1 and [0101]).
PNG
media_image7.png
332
844
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compounds HT-09, ET-8, and 9 of Shin have identical structure as Applicant’s Formula HT-1, ET-1, and D-1 of the instant claims.
Shin teaches that the device of Shin provides high efficiency and longer lifetime ([0005]).
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 Kato as modified by Geum by incorporating Compound HT-09 as a host, Compound ET-8 as a host, Compound 9 as a sensitizer, and the Compound of Kato as modified by Geum as a dopant into the emission layer, as taught by Kato, Geum, and Shin.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency and longer lifetime, based on the teaching of Shin.
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 Kato as modified by Geum and Shin comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound HT-09 of Shin as a host, Compound ET-8 as a host, Compound 9 as a sensitizer, and Compound of Kato as modified by Geum as a dopant), 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, 5-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13-14, and 20 of US Patent No. 12,757,625 (The patent has been granted but has not been published. See corresponding application No. 17/992,745, hereafter Patent ‘625). 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, 5-8, 12-14 and 16-19, Patent ‘625 discloses a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound of Formula 1 and exemplifies Compound 32 as the first compound (claim 13).
PNG
media_image12.png
403
377
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The Compound 32 of Patent ‘625 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-14 and 16-19.
The Light emitting device of Patent ‘625 comprising a first electrode, the emission layer containing Compound 32 of Patent ‘625, and a second electrode reads on all the features of claims 1-3 and 5-8.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the Compound 32 of Patent ‘625 and the Light emitting device of Patent ‘625 reads on all the features of claims 1 and 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, the emission layer containing Compound 32 of Patent ‘625, and a second electrode.
The Compound 32 of Patent ‘625 has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 11. The only difference is that the carbazole group is not deuterated. However, Patent ‘625 does teach that the substituent of the carbazole (R4 and R5 of Formula 1) can be deuterium (claims 1 and 14) and exemplifies deuterated carbazole (Compound 26 in claims 13 and 20).
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 32 of Patent ‘625 by substituting the unsubstituted carbazole with deuterated carbazole, as taught by Patent ‘625.
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 compound of Patent ‘625 which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 11, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
The modification also provides Modified light emitting device of Patent ‘625 comprising a first electrode, the emission layer containing Modified compound of Patent ‘625, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claims 10-11, the Compound 32 of Patent ‘625 and the Light emitting device of Patent ‘625 reads on all the features of claims 1 and 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, the emission layer containing Compound 32 of Patent ‘625, and a second electrode.
The emission layer does not comprise specific first, second, and third compounds; however, Patent ‘625 does teach that the emission layer comprises a first compound of Formula H-1, a second compound of H-2, and a third compound of Formula D-2 (claim 4).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Patent ‘625 by incorporating a first compound of Formula H-1, a second compound of H-2, and a third compound of Formula D-2 in the emission layer of the device, as taught by Patent ‘625.
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 also provides Modified light emitting device of Patent ‘625 (2) comprising a first electrode, the emission layer containing a first compound of Formula H-1, a second compound of H-2, and a third compound of Formula D-2, and the Modified compound of Patent ‘625, and a second electrode.
Claims 1-2, 7, 12-13, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/503,982 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘982). 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 1-2, 7, 12-13, and 18, Application ‘982 discloses a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a functional layer, and a second electrode, wherein the functional layer comprises Compound 199 (claim 12).
PNG
media_image13.png
301
322
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Compound 199 of Application ‘982 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-13 and 18.
Application ‘892 does not disclose a specific light emitting layer, wherein the emission layer comprises the Compound 199; however, Application ‘892 does teach that the compound of Formula 1 can be incorporated in an emission layer (claim 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Application ‘892 by incorporating an emission layer comprising the Compound 199 in the functional layer of the device, as taught by Application ‘892.
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 ‘892 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer containing Compound 199 of Application ‘892, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 7.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the Compound 199 of Application ‘982 and the Light emitting device of Application ‘982 reads on all the features of claims 1 and 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, the emission layer containing Compound 199 of Application ‘982, and a second electrode.
The Compound 199 of Application ‘982 has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 11. The only difference is that the carbazole group is not deuterated. However, Application ‘982 does teach that the substituent of the carbazole (R4 and R5 of Formula 1) can be deuterium (claims 1 and 14) and exemplifies deuterated carbazole (Compound 26 in claims 13 and 20).
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 199 of Application ‘982 by substituting the unsubstituted carbazole with deuterated carbazole, as taught by Application ‘982.
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 compound of Application ‘982 which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 11, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
The modification also provides Modified light emitting device of Application ‘982 comprising a first electrode, the emission layer containing Modified compound of Application ‘982, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claims 10-11, the Compound 199 of Application ‘982 and the Light emitting device of Application ‘982 reads on all the features of claims 1 and 12 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, the emission layer containing Compound 199 of Application ‘982, and a second electrode.
The emission layer does not comprise specific first, second, and third compounds; however, Application ‘982 does teach that the emission layer comprises a first compound of Formula H-1, a second compound of H-2, and a third compound of Formula D-2 (claim 4).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘982 by incorporating a first compound of Formula H-1, a second compound of H-2, and a third compound of Formula D-2 in the emission layer of the device, as taught by Application ‘982.
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 also provides Modified light emitting device of Application ‘982 (2) comprising a first electrode, the emission layer containing a first compound of Formula H-1, a second compound of H-2, and a third compound of Formula D-2, and the Compound 199 of Application ‘982, and a second electrode.
Conclusion
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
