CTNF 18/311,560 CTNF 95254 DETAILED ACTION 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. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because a label of “Fig. 1” is used in the drawing sheet. Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered, and the abbreviation "Fig." must not appear. 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). It is advised to use “Figure” . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, Applicant recites “k1 is 1, d5is 4, and all R 5 (s) are deuterium;” It should be “k1 is 1, d5 is 4, and all R 5 (s) are deuterium;” Appropriate correction is required. 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 Claims 1-20 are 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. Regarding claim 1 , Applicant recites “A heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1: wherein … E 1 is a group represented by Formula A, … k1 is an integer from 1 to 5, …” indicating that there can be multiple E 1 groups substituted to the phenyl group of PNG media_image1.png 118 139 media_image1.png Greyscale . For example, when k1 is 2, there are two E 1 groups substituted to the phenyl group of PNG media_image1.png 118 139 media_image1.png Greyscale The claim further recites “a moiety represented by PNG media_image1.png 118 139 media_image1.png Greyscale in Formula 1 is a group represented by Formula 4-2 or 4-3 PNG media_image2.png 117 235 media_image2.png Greyscale , … R 51 to R 55 are each independently the same as described in connection with R 5 , …” When there are multiple E 1 groups as outlined above, at least one of R 51 , R 53 , R 54 , and R 55 in Formula 4-2 or at least one of R 51 , R 52 , R 54 , and R 55 in Formula 4-3 has to have an option to be a group to encompass the limitation of the Formula A which is aryl. For example, when k1 is 2, at least one of R 51 , R 53 , R 54 , and R 55 in Formula 4-2 or at least one of R 51 , R 52 , R 54 , and R 55 in Formula 4-3 has to have an option to be an aryl group. However, none of R 51 to R 55 and R 5 can be an aryl based on the definition of R 5 . It is unclear whether the k1 can be 2 to 5 and/or R 51 to R 55 and R 5 can be an aryl group, rendering this claim indefinite. For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that k1 can be 2 to 5 such that R 5 and R 51 to R 55 can be each independently an aryl group. Regarding claims 2-20 , claims 2- 20 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 1. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 2 , claim 2 recites “k1, n2, and d6 are each at least 1, …”. However, claim 1 requires n2 to be 0. Currently claim 2 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1, hereafter Nagao) . Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-11 , Nagao discloses a compound of Formula (1) ([0010]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]), wherein A is Formula 2. Nagao exemplifies Compound 203 ([0054]). PNG media_image3.png 339 657 media_image3.png Greyscale The Compound 203 of Nagao has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, wherein k1 is 2 . 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 12-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1) . Regarding claims 12-14, 17, and 19-20 , the Compound 203 of Nagao reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. Nagao does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 203 of Nagao; however, Nagao does teach that the compound of Nagao can be used as a host material with a triplet emissive material such as an Ir complex ([0079], [0081]). Nagao further teaches that the compound of Nagao can be used as a hole transporting host in combination with an electron transporting host such as a triazine compound ([0079]). Nagao exemplifies triazine compounds (see examples in [0084] including at least the first to fourth compounds on page 48). Nagao teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device (Example 9 in [0146], Table 3) comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (HT-I), an emission layer (the compound of Nagao as a host, and D-2 as a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer (E-I), and a second electrode (Al). 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 203 of Nagao by incorporating it into the emission layer of an organic light emitting device as a hole transporting host with an electron transporting host of a triazine compound and a triplet dopant of Compound D-2, as taught by Nagao. 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 exemplified hole transporting hosts, electron transporting hosts, and triplet dopants in the device of Nagao 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 organic light emitting device of Nagao comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (HT-I), an emission layer (Compound 203 of Nagao as a hole transporting host, a triazine compound as an electron transporting host, and Compound D-2 of Nagao as a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer (E-I), and a second electrode (Al), wherein the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-14, 17, and 19 . Nagao does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Nagao; however, Nagao does teach that the organic light emitting device can be used for a display device ([0100]-[0101]) 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 organic light emitting device of Nagao by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Nagao. 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 organic light emitting devices in a display device 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 a display device comprising the Modified organic light emitting device of Nagao, wherein the display device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claim 20 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1) as applied to claims 12-14, 17, and 19-20 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo) . Regarding claims 15-16 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Nagao reads on all the features of claim 12 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (HT-I), an emission layer (Compound 203 of Nagao as a hole transporting host, a triazine compound as an electron transporting host, and Compound D-2 of Nagao as a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer (E-I), and a second electrode (Al). The device does not comprise mixed layers disposed between the hole transport layer and the emission layer and between the emission layer and the electron transport layer. Seo teaches that a mixed layer disposed in-between two neighboring organic layers of an organic light emitting device containing the materials from both neighboring organic layers (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “1 st mixed region” and “2 nd mixed region” in Fig. 19). Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Nagao by incorporating a 1 st mixed layer between the hole transport layer and the emission layer and a 2 nd mixed layer between the emission layer and the electron transport layer, as taught by Nagao and Seo. The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Nagao as modified by Seo comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (HT-I), a 1 st mixed layer comprising the Compound 203 of Nagao, an emission layer (Compound 203 of Nagao as a hole transporting host, a triazine compound as an electron transporting host, and Compound D-2 of Nagao as a phosphorescent dopant), a 2 nd mixed layer comprising the Compound 203 of Nagao, an electron transport layer (E-I), and a second electrode (Al) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1) as applied to claims 12-14, 17, and 19-20 above, further in view of Hatwar et al. (US 2007/0001587 A1, hereafter Hatwar) . Regarding claim 18 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Nagao reads on all the features of claim 12 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (HT-I), an emission layer (Compound 203 of Nagao as a hole transporting host, a triazine compound as an electron transporting host, and Compound D-2 of Nagao as a phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer (E-I), and a second electrode (Al). The device does not emit white light because the emission layer comprises a single emitter, Compound D-2 of Nagao emitting green light (see the column named by “Emitted color” being “Green” in the Example 9 of Table 3); however, Nagao does teach that a plurality of dopant materials can be used including fluorescent dopants such as a perylene compound and phosphorescent dopants such as an Ir complex ([0076], [0080], [0081]). Hatwar discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a white emission layer (“broadband light emitting unit” in Fig. 1 and [0010]-[0015]). Hatwar teaches the white emission layer can comprise multiple dopants including red, green, and blue emitting materials ([0095]). Hatwar teaches a red fluorescent compound having perylene structure ([0100]). 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 organic light emitting device of Nagao by incorporating a red fluorescent compound having perylene structure and a blue dye in the emitting layer, as taught by Nagao and Hatwar. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device based on the teaching of Hatwar. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Nagao as modified by Hatwar comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole transport layer (HT-I), an emission layer (Compound 203 of Nagao as a hole transporting host, a triazine compound as an electron transporting host, and Compound D-2 of Nagao as a green phosphorescent dopant, a red fluorescent dopant, and a blue dye), an electron transport layer (E-I), and a second electrode (Al) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao et al. (US 2014/0070204 A1) in view of Liu et al. (“Isotope Effect of Host Material on Device Stability of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes” Small, 2021, vol. 1, page 2000057-1 to -6, hereafter Liu) . Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-11 , Nagao discloses a compound of Formula (1) ([0010]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0001]), wherein A is Formula 2. Nagao exemplifies Compound 203 ([0054]). PNG media_image3.png 339 657 media_image3.png Greyscale In the Compound 203 of Nagao, some substituents are hydrogen, not deuterium; however, Nagao does teach that the hydrogen atom as the substituents of the Formulas 1 and 2 can be deuterium ([0019]). Nagao exemplifies a compound of Formulas 1 and 2, wherein all the hydrogen atoms are replaced by deuterium (see examples in [0054] including at least Compound 195). Liu teaches substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides slower kinetic rate for unwanted chemical reaction and improve lifetime of the device comprising the deuterated compound (page 2, column 1, line 5-11). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 203 of Nagao by substituting all the hydrogen atom with deuterium, as taught by Nagao and Liu. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide slower kinetic rate for unwanted chemical reaction and improve lifetime of the device comprising the deuterated compound based on the teaching of Liu. 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 hydrogen with deuterium in the Formulas 1 and 2 of Nagao 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 Nagao as modified by Liu, having identical structure as the Compound 203 of Nagao except that all the hydrogen atoms are replaced by deuterium . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 9,312,499 B1, hereafter Zeng) in view of Liu et al. (“Isotope Effect of Host Material on Device Stability of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes” Small, 2021, vol. 1, page 2000057-1 to -6, hereafter Liu) . Regarding claims 1-8, 10-14, 17, and 20 , Zeng discloses a compound represented by Formula I including the three carbazole structures (shown below) at position G 1 , and used for an organic light emitting device (col. 1, line 18 and col. 3, line 6) and exemplifies Compound 3 (col. 19). PNG media_image4.png 380 647 media_image4.png Greyscale The Compound 3 of Zeng does not have deuterium; however, Zeng dos teach that the substituent at the position corresponding to R 1 -R 6 can be deuterium (col. 9, line 64) and the biphenyl at the position corresponding to L and G 2 of Formula I can be phenyl or biphenyl substituted by deuterium (col. 10, line 4-29). Liu teaches substitution of hydrogen with deuterium provides slower kinetic rate for unwanted chemical reaction and improve lifetime of the device comprising the deuterated compound (page 2, column 1, line 5-11). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 3 of Zeng by substituting all the hydrogen atom (i.e. at positions R 1 -R 6 and all the substituents of L and G 2 ) with deuterium, as taught by Zeng and Liu. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide slower kinetic rate for unwanted chemical reaction and improve lifetime of the device comprising the deuterated compound based on the teaching of Liu. 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 hydrogen with deuterium at positions R 1 -R 6 and all the substituents of L and G 2 in the Formula I of Zeng would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). PNG media_image5.png 330 554 media_image5.png Greyscale The modification provides Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu which has identical structure as the Compound 3 of Zeng except all the hydrogen atoms are substituted by deuterium, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-8 and 10-11 . Zeng does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu; however, Zeng does teach that the compound of Zeng can be used as a host of the emission layer (col. 4, line 27). Zeng teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transporting layer, an emission layer, an electron transporting layer, and a second electrode (Fig. 1). Zeng teaches that a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant can be the emitting dopant (col. 29, line 22). Zeng exemplifies an Ir complex, Compound GD as a green phosphorescent dopant (col. 113). 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 Zeng as modified by Liu by incorporating it into the emission layer with a green phosphorescent dopant, Compound GD, as taught by Zeng. 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 hosts of Zeng in the device of Zeng 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 Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu as a host, Compound GD as a green phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-14 and 17 . Zeng does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu; however, Zeng does teach that the device can be incorporated in a television, as taught by Zeng. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu by incorporating it into a television, as taught by Zeng. 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 OLEDs in a television 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 an electronic apparatus (i.e. television) comprising the Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu, meeting all the limitations of claim 20 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 9,312,499 B1) in view of Liu et al. (“Isotope Effect of Host Material on Device Stability of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes” Small, 2021, vol. 1, page 2000057-1 to -6) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-14, 17, and 20 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) . Regarding claims 15-16 , the Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu reads on all the features of claims 12-14 and 17 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu as a host, Compound GD as a green phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode. The device does not comprise mixed layers disposed between the hole transport layer and the emission layer and between the emission layer and the electron transport layer. Seo teaches that a mixed layer disposed in-between two neighboring organic layers of an organic light emitting device containing the materials from both neighboring organic layers (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “1 st mixed region” and “2 nd mixed region” in Fig. 19). Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu by incorporating a 1 st mixed layer between the hole transport layer and the emission layer and a 2 nd mixed layer between the emission layer and the electron transport layer, as taught by Seo. The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu and Seo comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, a 1 st mixed layer comprising the Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu, an emission layer (Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu as a hole transporting host and Compound GD as a green phosphorescent dopant), a 2 nd mixed layer comprising the Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 9,312,499 B1) in view of Liu et al. (“Isotope Effect of Host Material on Device Stability of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes” Small, 2021, vol. 1, page 2000057-1 to -6) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-14, 17, and 20 above, further in view of Hatwar et al. (US 2007/0001587 A1) . Regarding claim 18 , the Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu reads on all the features of claims 12-14 and 17 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu as a host, Compound GD as a green phosphorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode. The device does not emit white light because the emission layer comprises a single emitter, Compound GD emitting green light; however, Zeng does teach that a fluorescent dopant can be used as the emitting dopant in the device (col. 29, line 22). Hatwar discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a white emission layer (“broadband light emitting unit” in Fig. 1 and [0010]-[0015]). Hatwar teaches the white emission layer can comprise multiple dopants including red, green, and blue emitting materials ([0095]). Hatwar teaches a red fluorescent compound having perylene structure ([0100]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu by incorporating a red fluorescent compound having perylene structure and a blue dye in the emitting layer, as taught by Zeng and Hatwar. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device based on the teaching of Hatwar. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu and Hatwar comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu as a host, and Compound GD as a green phosphorescent dopant, a red fluorescent dopant, and a blue dye), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 9,312,499 B1) in view of Liu et al. (“Isotope Effect of Host Material on Device Stability of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes” Small, 2021, vol. 1, page 2000057-1 to -6) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-14, 17, and 20 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0098716 A1, hereafter Lee) . Regarding claims 12-14 and 17-19 , the Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. Zeng does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu as a first host with another host; however, Zeng does teach that the compound of Zeng can be used as a host of the emission layer (col. 4, line 27). Zeng teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transporting layer, an emission layer, an electron transporting layer, and a second electrode (Fig. 1). Zeng teaches that a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant can be the emitting dopant (col. 29, line 22). Lee discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an emission layer containing a first host of Formula 1, a second host of Formula 2, an assisting dopant of Formula 3, and a light emitting dopant of Formula 4 ([0007]). PNG media_image6.png 509 647 media_image6.png Greyscale The Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu is encompassed by Formula 1 of Lee; thus, the compound can be used as the first host of the device of Lee. Lee exemplifies an electron transport Compound ET1-1 as the Formula 2, a phosphorescent Compound D1-1 as the Formula 3, and a fluorescent Compound D1 as the Formula 4. Lee teaches the device of Lee provides improved efficiency and life ([0157]). 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 Zeng as modified by Liu by incorporating it as the hole transporting host with the Compound ET1-1 as an electron transporting host, the Compound D1-1 as a phosphorescent dopant, and the Compound D1 as a fluorescent dopant, as taught by Zeng and Lee. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide improved efficiency and life, based on the teaching of Zeng and Lee. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Zeng as modified by Liu and Lee comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Zeng as modified by Liu as a hole transporting host, Compound ET1-1 of Lee as an electron transporting host, the Compound D1-1 of Lee as a phosphorescent dopant, and the Compound D1 of Lee as a fluorescent dopant ), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 AIA Claim s 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 12-14, and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 3, 10-12, and 17-19 of copending Application No. 18/311,572 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘572) . 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, 6-7, 10-11, 12-14, and 17-20 , Application ‘572 discloses Compound H3 (claim 10). PNG media_image7.png 253 160 media_image7.png Greyscale , wherein at least one hydrogen is deuterium. The Compound H3 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 6-7, and 10-11 . Application ‘572 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound H3; however, Application ‘572 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer containing a first compound and a second compound, and a second electrode (claim 12). Application ‘572 teaches that a hole transport region and an electron transport region (claim 11). Application ‘572 teaches compound E1 as the second compound (claim 10). Application ‘572 teaches a phosphorescent compound P1 used as the third compound in the emission layer (claim 17) and a fluorescent compound D1 used as the fourth compound in the emission layer (claim 19). 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 H3 by incorporating it with Compound E1, a phosphorescent compound P1, a fluorescent compound D1 in the emission layer of an organic light emitting device having structure of a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode., as taught by Application ‘572. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of first, second, third, and fourth compounds in the device 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 organic light emitting device of Application ‘572 comprising a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer (Compound H3, Compound E1, a phosphorescent Compound P1, and a fluorescent Compound D1), an electron transport region, and a second electrode, wherein the organic light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-14, and 17-20 . Regarding claim 2 , the Compound H3 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. Application ‘572 does not disclose the specific location of the deuterium in the Compound H3; however, Application ‘572 does teach that at least one of R11 can is deuterium (claim 3). 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 H3 by substituting at least one of R11 with deuterium, as taught by Application ‘572. 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 H3, which has identical structure as Compound H3 except at least one of R11 is deuterium. 08-35 AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-7, and 10-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 3, 10, 12-18 of copending Application No. 18/312,185 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘185) . 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, 6-7, and 10-20 , Application ‘185 discloses Compound 1-145 (claim 10). PNG media_image8.png 203 178 media_image8.png Greyscale , wherein at least one hydrogen is deuterium. The Compound 1-145 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 6-7, and 10-11 . Application ‘185 does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 1-145; however, Application ‘185 does teach an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer containing the compound of Application ‘185, an and a second electrode (claim 12). Application ‘185 teaches a hole transport region and an electron transport region (claim 13). Application ‘185 teaches the hole transport region further comprises the compound (claim 14). Application ‘185 teaches the electron transport region further comprises the compound (claim 15). Application ‘185 teaches the emission layer further comprises a phosphorescent dopant (claim 16). Application ‘185 teaches the emission layer further comprises a fluorescent dopant (claim 17). Application ‘185 teaches the emission layer further comprises an electron transporting host (claim 18). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-145 by incorporating it into the emission layer with an electron transporting host, a phosphorescent dopant, and a fluorescent dopant, as taught by Application ‘185. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each 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 organic light emitting device of Application ‘185 comprising a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer (Compound 1-145, an electron transporting host, a phosphorescent dopant, and a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport region, and a second electrode, wherein the organic light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 12-20 . Regarding claims 2-3 , the Compound 1-145 of Application ‘185 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above. Application ‘185 does not disclose the specific location of the deuterium in the Compound 1-145; however, Application ‘185 does teach that each R1 is deuterium and d1 is 4 (claim 3). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 1-145 by substituting each R1 with deuterium and d1 being 4, as taught by Application ‘185. 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 1-145, which has identical structure as Compound 1-145 except that each R1 is deuterium and d1 is 4. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 3 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 4 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 5 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 6 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 7 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 8 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 9 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 10 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 11 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 12 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 13 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 14 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 15 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 16 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 17 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 18 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 19 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 20 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 21 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 22 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 23 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 24 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/311,560 Page 25 Art Unit: 1786
Prosecution Insights