CTNF 18/201,684 CTNF 101426 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2018-0126164 , filed on 10/22/2018 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the first emitter has “a triplet metal-to-ligand charge transfer state ( 3 MLCT) of the first emitter is about 7% or more, the 3 MLCT is evaluated by quantum chemical calculations based on density functional theory (DFT)”. It is unclear what this percentage is in reference to. 7% or more of what? The broadest reasonable interpretation is that it is in reference to the percentage of the HOMO to LUMO transition being attributed to the 3 MLCT state. However, Applicant has not specified this in the claim and has not given further guidance about what the percentage is in reference to within the instant specification. The only further guidance the Applicant has given was about the basis set and functional that was used to produce the DFT calculations [Table 1]. Therefore, claim 1 is considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as the percentage of the HOMO to LUMO transition being attributed to the 3 MLCT state. Claims 2–13, 17–20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1–3, 8–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2021/0336155 A1, hereafter “Huh”) in view of Taiju et al. (Thin Solid Films 438–439 (2003) 301–307, hereafter “Taiju”) . Regarding Claim 1–3, 8, 10, 11, 13 , Huh teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 1-1 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron injection and transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron injection and transport layer comprises Compound 1 [0332]. Compound 1 contains a first moiety represented by Formula 8-1 (shown below) wherein X 8 is O, a second moiety comprising a diazine group, wherein the first moiety and second moiety are linked to each other through a first linking group (phenyl). PNG media_image1.png 231 203 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 235 354 media_image2.png Greyscale However, Example 1-1 comprises BD1 as the light emitting dopant in the light emitting layer, which does not comprise platinum. Huh teaches octaethylporphyrin platinum (PtOEP) may be used as the light emitting dopant in the light emitting layer [0211]. Additionally, Huh teaches organic light emitting devices including a compound of Chemical Formula 1 results in a device having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute PtOEP for BD1 as the light emitting dopant in the light emitting layer of Example 1-1, as this would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another, with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to produce additional devices including PtOEP in the light emitting layer based on the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh. Per Claim 1 , the resulting modified version of Example 1-1, hereafter “Device 1”, comprising PtOEP in the light emitting layer reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron injection and transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron injection and transport layer comprises Compound 1 [0332]. Compound 1 contains a first moiety represented by Formula 8-1 (shown below) wherein X 8 is O, a second moiety comprising a diazine group, wherein the first moiety and second moiety are linked to each other through a first linking group (phenyl). PNG media_image1.png 231 203 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 235 354 media_image2.png Greyscale Device 1 also comprises PtOEP which is an emissive platinum complex. However, Huh is silent with respect to the triplet metal-to-ligand charge transfer state ( 3 MLCT) of PtOEP being about 7% or more based on density functional theory (DFT) quantum chemical calculations. It is well known in the art that PtOEP is a phosphorescent emitter, emitting light from a 3 MLCT state, as evidenced by Taiju. Taiju teaches that PtOEP has a strong 3 MLCT absorption band which is also the lowest energy absorption band [Fig. 2]. Therefore, since it is the lowest energy absorption band, it corresponds to the HOMO to LUMO transition. Taiju attributes this band to 3 MLCT absorption. It follows that the HOMO to LUMO transition must have a high percentage of 3 MLCT contribution. Based on the preponderance of evidence the 3 MLCT of PtOEP being about 7% or more 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. PNG media_image3.png 491 567 media_image3.png Greyscale Per Claim 2 , Device 1 comprising PtOEP in the light emitting layer reads on Applicant’s limitation since Taiju teaches PtOEP has emission at 542 nm in both electroluminescence and photoluminescence [pg. 306, paragraph 2]. This reads on Applicant’s limitation of the emission peak wavelength being about 510 nm to about 610 nm. Additionally, Taiju teaches PtOEP has an emission band at 648 nm [pg. 306, paragraph 2]. Applicant’s specification recites that “about” may mean within ± 30%, 20%, 10%, 5% of the stated value. Therefore, a maximum emission at 648 nm reads on Applicant’s limitation of about 510 nm to about 610 nm. Taiju teaches emission spectrum of PtOEP (shown below) [Fig. 8]. PNG media_image4.png 340 415 media_image4.png Greyscale Per Claim 3 , Device 1 comprising PtOEP in the light emitting layer reads on Applicant’s limitation since the emission peak wavelength at 542 nm appears to have a FWHM of ~30 nm based on Figure 8 taught by Taiju (shown above) falling within the range of about 15 nm to about 85 nm. Additionally, Taiju teaches the FWHM of the emission peak wavelength at 648 nm corresponds to 413 cm -1 [pg. 306, paragraph 3]. It appears that the FWHM is ~30 nm based on Figure 8 taught by Taiju (shown above) falling within the range of about 15 nm to about 85 nm. Per Claim 8 , Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since the electron transport layer comprises Compound 1. Per Claim 10 , Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a hole blocking layer between the light emitting layer and the electron transport layer. The hole blocking layer does not comprise Compound 1, while the electron transport layer comprises Compound 1. Per Claim 11 , Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 8 (shown below), PNG media_image5.png 339 563 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 218 332 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image1.png 231 203 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein: X- - - 14 is N, X- 15 is N, X 16 is C(Z 6 ), Ar 1 and Ar 3 are each a C 6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), Ar 2 is a C 14 carbocyclic group (phenanthrene), x1 to x3 are each 1, Ar 13 is represented by Formula 8-1 (as discussed above) wherein X 8 is O, Z 6 is hydrogen, y1 to y3 are each 0, so Z 1 to Z 3 are not present. Per Claim 13 , Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since x1 to x3 are each 1, Ar 1 and Ar 3 are each a benzene group, while Ar 2 is a phenanthrene group. Regarding Claim 9 , Device 1 does not read on claim 9 because the electron transport layer is not in direct contact with the emission layer since there is a hole blocking layer in between. Huh teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 2-1 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer comprises Compound 1 [0336] – [0337]. Therefore, Huh teaches organic light emitting devices with a hole blocking layer (Example 1-1) and without a hole blocking layer (Example 2-1). Additionally, Huh teaches organic light emitting devices including a compound of Chemical Formula 1 results in a device having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Device 1 wherein it does not have a hole blocking layer, because it would have been a choice between having a hole blocking layer (like Example 1-1) or not having a hole blocking layer (like Example 2-1), which a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for an organic light emitting device possessing the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices like Device 1 with and without a hole blocking layer having the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E). The modified version of Device 1, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the electron transport layer is in direct contact with the emission layer. Regarding Claim 12 , Device 1 does not read on claim 12 because at least one of x1 or x2 is not 2 or more in Compound 1. Huh teaches Compound 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1 (shown below), wherein R6 is represented by Chemical Formula 2, L1 is a direct bond, and Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl) [0008] – [0016]. Huh teaches Compound 2 which is also represented by Chemical Formula 1 wherein R12 is represented by Chemical Formula 2, L1 is an unsubstituted arylene (phenylene), and Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl). PNG media_image7.png 351 309 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 241 227 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 218 332 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 397 398 media_image9.png Greyscale Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Huh, 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 L1 from being a direct bond, like in Compound 1, to being a phenylene, like in Compound 2, because Huh teaches the variable may suitably be selected as a phenylene as shown in Compound 2. The substitution would have been one preferred 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 as an electron transport material in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Huh and possess the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh [0021]. See MPEP 2143.I.(B). The modified version of Device 1, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since x1 is 2 in Modified Compound 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2021/0336155 A1) in view of Taiju et al. (Thin Solid Films 438–439 (2003) 301–307) as applied to Claims 1–3, 8–13 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0185942 A1, hereafter “Kim”) . Regarding Claims 17–20 , Huh teaches the organic light emitting device of Device 1, as described above. However, Huh does not teach a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, or a polarizing layer as required by claim 18. Kim teaches a display device comprising a touch screen, and an organic light emitting device [0028]. Kim further teaches the display device may further include a polarizing film to prevent reflection due to external light [0030]. Kim teaches the display device of present disclosure is light weight and has a thin profile [0015]. 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 substitute the organic light emitting device of the display device, taught by Kim, for the organic light emitting device of Device 1, taught by Huh in view of Lee, based on the teaching of Huh. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a display device with comprising an organic light emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh [0021], and have the light weight and thin profile taught by Kim. Per Claims 17 and 19 , the resulting display device (hereafter “Display Device 1”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises the organic light emitting device of Device 1. Per Claim 18 , Display Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a touch screen and a polarizing layer. Per Claim 20 , Display Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Kim teaches display devices are widely used for various applications such as televisions, monitors, mobile phones, and personal digital assistants [0006] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2021/0336155 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1, the US equivalent of EP 3 266 790 A1 provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 12/06/2023, hereafter “Lee”) . Regarding Claims 1–8, 10–11, 13–16 , Huh teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 1-1 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron injection and transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron injection and transport layer comprises Compound 1 [0332]. Compound 1 contains a first moiety represented by Formula 8-1 (shown below) wherein X 8 is O, a second moiety comprising a diazine group, wherein the first moiety and second moiety are linked to each other through a first linking group (phenyl). PNG media_image1.png 231 203 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 235 354 media_image2.png Greyscale However, Example 1-1 comprises BD1 as the light emitting dopant in the light emitting layer, which does not comprise platinum. Huh teaches octaethylporphyrin platinum (PtOEP) may be used as the light emitting dopant in the light emitting layer [0211]. Therefore, Huh teaches platinum complexes may be used as the dopant in the light emitting layer. However, PtOEP does not read on claims 5 and 14 which specify the structure of the claimed platinum complex. Lee teaches organometallic compounds with improved molecular orientation and when used in an organic light emitting device leads to improved efficiency and lifespan [0341]. Specifically, Lee teaches organic light emitting devices comprising Compound 1-17 as a dopant which show increased luminance efficiency and lifespan in comparison to comparative devices [Table 2]. 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 Compound 1-17 as the dopant in the light emitting layer of the device taught by Huh, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a device with increased efficiency and lifespan, as taught by Lee. Per Claim 1 , the resulting organic light emitting device including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron injection and transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron injection and transport layer comprises Compound 1 while the light emitting layer comprises Compound 1-17 (hereafter “Device 2”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 1 contains a first moiety represented by Formula 8-1 (shown below) wherein X 8 is O, a second moiety comprising a diazine group, wherein the first moiety and second moiety are linked to each other through a first linking group (phenyl). PNG media_image1.png 231 203 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 235 354 media_image2.png Greyscale Device 2 also comprises Compound 1-17 which is an emissive platinum complex. However, Lee appears silent with respect to the triplet metal-to-ligand charge transfer state ( 3 MLCT) being about 7% or more. The instant specification recites PD01 which has a 3 MLCT of 15.33% [Table 2]. PD01 and Compound 1-17 are substantially identical aside from a methyl group (shown below). PNG media_image10.png 220 246 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 296 376 media_image11.png Greyscale Since Lee teaches Compound 1-17, a substantially identical structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of 3 MLCT being about 7% or more 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 2 , Lee appears silent with respect to the emission peak wavelength of Compound 1-17. However, as discussed above, Compound 1-17 is substantially identical to Applicant’s PD01. The instant specification recites that PD01 has an emission peak wavelength of 522 nm [Table 3]. Since Lee teaches Compound 1-17, a substantially identical structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of emission peak wavelength is about 510 nm to about 610 nm 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. Therefore, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation. Per Claim 3 , Lee appears silent with respect to the full width at half maximum of Compound 1-17. However, as discussed above, Compound 1-17 is substantially identical to Applicant’s PD01. The instant specification recites that PD01 has a full width at half maximum of 32 nm [Table 3]. Since Lee teaches Compound 1-17, a substantially identical structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of full width at half maximum is about 15 nm to about 85 nm 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. Therefore, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation. Per Claim 4 , Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 1-17 comprises a first ligand bonded to the platinum, the first ligand is a tetradentate ligand wherein 3 cyclometallated rings are bonded to the platinum (Condition A), a carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are bonded to the platinum (Condition B), and the first ligand comprises a benzimidazole group (Condition C). Per Claims 5 and 14 , Device 2 including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron injection and transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron injection and transport layer comprises Compound 1 while the light emitting layer comprises Compound 1-17 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 1 contains a first moiety represented by Formula 8-1 (shown below) wherein X 8 is O, a second moiety comprising a diazine group, wherein the first moiety and second moiety are linked to each other through a first linking group (phenyl). PNG media_image1.png 231 203 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 235 354 media_image2.png Greyscale Additionally, Compound 1-17 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 (shown below), PNG media_image12.png 344 418 media_image12.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 296 376 media_image11.png Greyscale wherein: M is platinum (Pt), X 1 and X 3 are each C, while X 2 and X 4 are each N, T 11 is O, while T 12 to T 14 are each a chemical bond, T 1 to T 3 are each a single bond, X 21 to X 23 are C(R 21 ) to C(R 23 ), wherein R 21 to R 23 are each a hydrogen, X 24 is N(R 24 ), wherein R 24 is a C 1 alkyl group (methyl) R 1 is a C 4 alkyl group (tertbutyl), while a1 is 2, R 3 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), while a3 is 1, R 4 is a C 6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) in one instance, and a C 1 alkyl group (methyl) in another, while a4 is 2. Per Claims 6 and 15 , Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since X 1 and X 3 are each C, while X 2 and X 4 are each N in Compound 1-17. Per Claims 7 and 16 , Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since T 11 is O, while T 12 to T 14 are each a chemical bond in Compound 1-17. Per Claims 8 , Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since the electron transport layer comprises Compound 1. Per Claim 10 , Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a hole blocking layer between the light emitting layer and the electron transport layer. The hole blocking layer does not comprise Compound 1, while the electron transport layer comprises Compound 1. Per Claim 11 , Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 8 (shown below), PNG media_image5.png 339 563 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 218 332 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image1.png 231 203 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein: X- - - 14 is N, X- 15 is N, X 16 is C(Z 6 ), Ar 1 and Ar 3 are each a C 6 carbocyclic group (phenyl), Ar 2 is a C 14 carbocyclic group (phenanthrene), x1 to x3 are each 1, Ar 13 is represented by Formula 8-1 (as discussed above) wherein X 8 is O, Z 6 is hydrogen, y1 to y3 are each 0, so Z 1 to Z 3 are not present. Per Claim 13 , Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since x1 to x3 are each 1, Ar 1 and Ar 3 are each a benzene group, while Ar 2 is a phenanthrene group. Regarding Claim 9 , Device 2 does not read on claim 9 because the electron transport layer is not in direct contact with the emission layer since there is a hole blocking layer in between. Huh teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 2-1 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer comprises Compound 1 [0336] – [0337]. Therefore, Huh teaches organic light emitting devices with a hole blocking layer (Example 1-1) and without a hole blocking layer (Example 2-1). Additionally, Huh teaches organic light emitting devices including a compound of Chemical Formula 1 results in a device having low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Device 2 wherein it does not have a hole blocking layer, because it would have been a choice between having a hole blocking layer (like Example 1-1) or not having a hole blocking layer (like Example 2-1), which a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for an organic light emitting device possessing the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices like Device 2 with and without a hole blocking layer having the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E). The modified version of Device 2, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the electron transport layer is in direct contact with the emission layer. Regarding Claim 12 , Device 2 does not read on claim 12 because at least one of x1 or x2 is not 2 or more in Compound 1. Huh teaches Compound 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1 (shown below), wherein R6 is represented by Chemical Formula 2, L1 is a direct bond, and Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl) [0008] – [0016]. Huh teaches Compound 2 which is also represented by Chemical Formula 1 wherein R12 is represented by Chemical Formula 2, L1 is an unsubstituted arylene (phenylene), and Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl). PNG media_image7.png 351 309 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 241 227 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 218 332 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 397 398 media_image9.png Greyscale Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Huh, 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 L1 from being a direct bond, like in Compound 1, to being a phenylene, like in Compound 2, because Huh teaches the variable may suitably be selected as a phenylene as shown in Compound 2. The substitution would have been one preferred 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 as an electron transport material in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Huh and possess the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh [0021]. See MPEP 2143.I.(B). The modified version of Device 2, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since x1 is 2 in Modified Compound 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2021/0336155 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0013078 A1) as applied to Claims 1–16 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0185942 A1) . Regarding Claims 17–20 , Huh teaches the organic light emitting device of Device 2, as described above. However, Huh does not teach a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, or a polarizing layer as required by claim 18. Kim teaches a display device comprising a touch screen, and an organic light emitting device [0028]. Kim further teaches the display device may further include a polarizing film to prevent reflection due to external light [0030]. Kim teaches the display device of present disclosure is light weight and has a thin profile [0015]. 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 substitute the organic light emitting device of the display device, taught by Kim, for the organic light emitting device of Device 2, taught by Huh in view of Lee, based on the teaching of Huh. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a display device with comprising an organic light emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan benefits taught by Huh [0021], and have the light weight and thin profile taught by Kim. Per Claims 17 and 19 , the resulting display device (hereafter “Display Device 2”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises the organic light emitting device of Device 2. Per Claim 18 , Display Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a touch screen and a polarizing layer. Per Claim 20 , Display Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Kim teaches display devices are widely used for various applications such as televisions, monitors, mobile phones, and personal digital assistants [0006] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huh et al. (KR 2021/0032290 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 12/06/2023) teaches compounds which read on Applicant’s Formulae 8-1 to 8-4. Kim et al. (KR 2021/0020837 A, an English translation is provided in this office action) teaches compounds which read on Applicant’s Formulae 8-1 to 8-4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm. 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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. /J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 2 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 3 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 4 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 5 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 6 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 8 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 9 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 10 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 11 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 12 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 13 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 14 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 17 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 18 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/201,684 Page 19 Art Unit: 1789
Prosecution Insights