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 without traverse of species (A1) and species (B1), in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration with search, the request of election for the subspecies (B1) and (B2) are withdrawn, because there was no search burden between the two subspecies (B1) and (B2). The requirement of species election for the subspecies (A1) and (A2) is maintained. Applicant's election without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is now equated with an election of species (A1).
In the response of 07/01/2026, Applicant argues that claims 1-20 reads on the elected species. Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree. The elected species (A1) is directed to Pt or Pd complex, while claim 12 is directed to Ir or Os complex, which is a non-elected species (A2). Thus, claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “each of ring B1 to ring B4 is π electron-rich C5-C60 cyclic group” should be “each of ring B1 to ring B4 is a π electron-rich C5-C60 cyclic group”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the independent claim 1 requires a composition comprising a first compound comprising at least one pyrrole-containing condensed cyclic group and a silicon-containing group and not comprising an electron-transporting moiety; and a second compound comprising an azine group comprising at least one nitrogen and not comprising a silicon-containing group.
Per MPEP 2163 (II)(A)(3)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The instant disclosure does not adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus. The instant specification describes 7 specific examples of compositions (Films 1 to 4 in Table 2 and Examples 1, 2, and 5 in Table 3. Note that the other examples in Tables 2-3 include the same combinations of the first and the second compounds mentioned previously). All of these examples are limited to three kinds of first compounds (H1, H2, and H29) and four kinds of second compounds (E1, E3, E11, and E12).
While the instant disclosure exemplifies 29 examples of first compounds and 41 examples of second compounds ([0078], [0091]), these examples do not adequately represent the full scope of the claimed materials, which may be of many varied classes of compounds including those comprising other class of materials (e.g. polymer materials and organometallic materials). Even in the same class of compounds (i.e. small molecules), the claimed composition includes unlimited variety of first compounds each comprising a pyrrole- and silicon-containing condensed cyclic compound with no electron transporting moiety and second compounds each comprising an azine group comprising at least one nitrogen with no electron transporting moiety.
The limited number of examples described in the disclosure do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus of any composition comprising a pyrrole- and silicon-containing condensed cyclic compound with no electron transporting moiety and an azine compound comprising at least one nitrogen with no electron transporting moiety, as described above.
Regarding claims 2-20, the claims 2-20 are rejected due to the dependency of the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 18, the dependent claims 2-6 and 18 each requires the composition of claim 1 to have an additional limitation (i.e. the triplet energy of the first compound in claim 2; the structure of the first compound in claim 3; the structure of the silicon-containing group in claim 4; the structure of the second compound in claim 5; the structure of the first compound in claim 6; and the properties of the combination of the first and the second compounds in claim 18); however, even combining the additional limitation, the limited number of examples described in the disclosure do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus, due to the same reason described above.
Regarding claim 16, the dependent claim 16 requires the composition of claim 1 to have an additional limitation (i.e. the structure of first compound); however, even combining the additional limitation, the limited number of examples described in the disclosure do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus, due to the same reason described above. In specific, the instant disclosure does not adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus of the compositions, because the diversity of the second compound in the claimed composition is still too large.
Regarding claim 17, the dependent claim 17 requires the composition of claim 1 to have an additional limitation (i.e. the structure of second compound); however, even combining the additional limitation, the limited number of examples described in the disclosure do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus, due to the same reason described above. In specific, the instant disclosure does not adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus of the compositions, because the diversity of the first compound in the claimed composition is still too large.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for some of the compositions, does not reasonably provide enablement for all compositions claimed in claim 1. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claim 1, the independent claim 1 requires a composition comprising a first compound comprising at least one pyrrole-containing condensed cyclic group and a silicon-containing group and not comprising an electron-transporting moiety; and a second compound comprising an azine group comprising at least one nitrogen and not comprising a silicon-containing group.
The claimed composition requires a specific combination of a first compound and a second compound. However, the instant disclosure fails to contain proper written descriptions of the compositions such that an ordinary skill in the art would not make and use the invention without undue experiment.
The claim is drawn towards an exceedingly broad genus of possible combinations of a first compound and a second compound which could conceivably meet the claimed limitation.
(Wands factor A – the breadth of the claims) Applicant claims a composition comprising a first compound comprising at least one pyrrole-containing condensed cyclic group and a silicon-containing group and not comprising an electron-transporting moiety; and a second compound comprising an azine group comprising at least one nitrogen and not comprising a silicon-containing group. Applicant does not provide any additional limitation on the detailed structures of the first compound and the second compound. The possible number of composition which meets the claim limitation is exceedingly large.
(Wands factor C – state of the prior art) Prior arts typically provide a specific guidance how to form the claimed composition; in specific, such prior arts claim detailed structural formulas for each of the ingredients of the claimed composition.
(Wands factor F – amount of direction provided by Applicant). The instant specification describes 7 specific examples of compositions (Films 1 to 4 in Table 2 and Examples 1, 2, and 5 in Table 3. Note that the other examples in Tables 2-3 include the same combinations of the first and the second compounds mentioned previously). All of these examples are limited to three kinds of first compounds (H1, H2, and H29) and four kinds of second compounds (E1, E3, E11, and E12).
While the instant disclosure exemplifies 29 examples of first compounds and 41 examples of second compounds ([0078], [0091]), these examples do not adequately represent the full scope of the claimed materials, which may be of many varied classes of compounds including those comprising other class of materials (e.g. polymer materials and organometallic materials). Even in the same class of materials (i.e. small molecules), the claimed composition includes unlimited variety of first compounds each comprising a pyrrole- and silicon-containing condensed cyclic compound with no electron transporting moiety and second compounds each comprising an azine group comprising at least one nitrogen with no electron transporting moiety.
There is no general guidance on which organic compounds should be selected as the first and the second compounds. For example, there are no general structural formulas related to the claimed first and the second compounds.
There could be a massive number of possible combination of a first compound and a second compound. The specification fails to teach the direction of selecting each compound of the claimed composition.
Compared to the size of the scope of the claims, the direction to select each compound is limited to a portion of examples described, failing to teach the direction for the entire scope of the claimed composition.
(Wands factor G – number of working examples) Applicant only provides 7 specific examples of compositions (Films 1 to 4 in Table 2 and Examples 1, 2, and 5 in Table 3. Note that the other examples in Tables 2-3 include the same combinations of the first and the second compounds mentioned previously). All of these examples are limited to three kinds of first compounds (H1, H2, and H29) and four kinds of second compounds (E1, E3, E11, and E12).
However, the independent claim 1 claims a composition of any first compound comprising at least one pyrrole-containing condensed cyclic group and a silicon-containing group and not comprising an electron-transporting moiety; and any second compound comprising an azine group comprising at least one nitrogen and not comprising a silicon-containing group.
There are nearly unlimited number of compositions that read on the claimed limitation. The seven examples only read on a minute portion of the exceedingly large scope of potential compositions of the claims.
(Wands factor H – the quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention) As outlined above in Wands factors A-G, there are unlimited number of combinations of compounds which are possibly the ingredients of the claimed composition. A person having ordinary skill in the art wound not be able to make the invention without an undue amount of experimentation from the sheer number of possible first and second compounds used for the composition.
For these reasons, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that would enable a person of ordinary skill to make and use the invention as claimed. Accordingly, the specification fails to sufficiently enable a person having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to practice the invention commensurate with the full scope of the claims.
Regarding claims 2-20, the claims 220 are rejected due to the dependency of the rejected claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 18, the dependent claims 2-6 and 18 each requires the composition of claim 1 to have an additional limitation (i.e. the triplet energy of the first compound in claim 2; the structure of the first compound in claim 3; the structure of the silicon-containing group in claim 4; the structure of the second compound in claim 5; the structure of the first compound in claim 6; and the properties of the combination of the first and the second compounds in claim 18); however, even combining the additional limitation, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that would enable a person of ordinary skill to make and use the invention as claimed. Accordingly, the specification fails to sufficiently enable a person having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to practice the invention commensurate with the full scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 16, the dependent claim 16 requires the composition of claim 1 to have an additional limitation (i.e. the structure of first compound); however, even combining the additional limitation, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that would enable a person of ordinary skill to make and use the invention as claimed. Accordingly, the specification fails to sufficiently enable a person having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to practice the invention commensurate with the full scope of the claims. In specific, the scope of the second compound in the claimed composition is still too large.
Regarding claim 17, the dependent claim 17 requires the composition of claim 1 to have an additional limitation (i.e. the structure of second compound); however, even combining the additional limitation, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that would enable a person of ordinary skill to make and use the invention as claimed. Accordingly, the specification fails to sufficiently enable a person having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to practice the invention commensurate with the full scope of the claims. In specific, the scope of the first compound in the claimed composition is still too large.
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 1-5, 7-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan et al. (US 2020/0168812 A1, hereafter Wolohan) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2017/0077423 A1, hereafter Ahn) and Kim et al. (“Bicarbazole-triazine hybrid type mixed host materials for blue phosphorescent OLEDs with enhanced efficiency and lifetime”, J. Mater. Chem. C. 2022, vol. 10, page 8602-8608, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-11, and 16-20, Wolohan discloses a compound used as the host of an organic light emitting device ([0002], [0015]-[0026]) and exemplifies Compound A ([0157]).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound A of Wolohan has identical structure as the second compound of the instant claims.
Wolohan teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer comprising Compound A as a host and Compound 4 as an emitting dopant, and a second electrode ([0171]).
The emission layer material does not comprise a carbazole compound comprising a silicon containing group; however, Wolohan does teach one or additional hosts can be incorporated in the device of Wolohan ([0137]).
Ahn discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first host of Formula (1) and a second host of Formula (2) ([0009]). Ahn teaches that a multi component host system according to the invention of Ahn provides high efficiency and long lifespan ([0007]).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound A of Wolohan is encompassed by the Formula (2) of Ahn. Thus, an ordinary skill in the art would know that an additional host represented by the Formula (1) of Ahn to the device of Wolohan provides high efficiency and long lifespan.
Ahn exemplifies Compound H1-67 ([0033]). An ordinary skill in the art would choose the Compound H1-67 of Ahn, because an ordinary skill in the art would know that a carbazole compound with a triphenylsilyl group provides high triplet energy level for p-type host (page 8603, col. 2, line 8-9) and improved stability in the cation state (page 8604, col. 1, line 2-3) as taught by Kim.
PNG
media_image3.png
394
489
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound H1-67 of Ahn has identical structure as the first compound of the instant claims.
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 Wolohan by incorporating the Compound H1-67 of Ahn as a second host, as taught by Wolohan, Ahn, and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency and long lifespan to the organic light emitting device comprising the compound, based on the teaching of Ahn, and to provide high triplet energy level and improved stability in the cationic state, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of known hole transporting host materials 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 Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound H1-67 of Ahn as a host, Compound A of Wolohan as a host, and Compound 4 of Wolohan as an emitter), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition; the Compound H1-67 of Ahn is a first compound; the Compound A of Wolohan is a second compound; and the organic light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 16-17, and 19-20.
The Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device: 1) a triplet (T1) energy level of the first compound is greater than about 2.8 eV (claim 2); 2) the emitter emits blue light (claim 8); and 3) the first compound and the second compound form an exciplex and a maximum emission wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed from the first compound and the second compound is in a range of about 450 nm to about 490 nm (claim 18).
It is reasonable to presume that Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim inherently possesses the properties 1) to 3) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states: 1) in an embodiment, a triplet (T1) energy level of the first compound is greater than about 2.8 eV ([0007], [0029]); 2) in an embodiment, the emitter emits blue light ([0009], [0054]); and 3) in an embodiment, the first compound and the second compound form an exciplex and a maximum emission wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed from the first compound and the second compound is in a range of about 450 nm to about 490 nm ([0040]).
The Compound H1-67 of Ahn has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment H13 ([0078]) and has similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment H1 ([00296]). The Compound A of Wolohan has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment E1 ([00297]). The Compound 4 of Wolohan has substantially similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment P31 ([00306]). The claimed properties are determined by the emission layer materials of the OLED device, and each of the emission layer materials of the Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim are identical to or substantially similar as Applicant’s specific embodiments.
Therefore, Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim possesses the properties 1) to 3) above, meeting all the limitations of claims 2, 8, and 18.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Wolohan in view of Ahn and Kim does not disclose a specific display device comprising the Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim; however, Wolohan does teach that the OLED device can be incorporated in a display device such as a television ([0040]).
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 Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim by incorporating in a television as taught by Wolohan.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of 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 a television comprising the Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim, wherein the television is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan et al. (US 2020/0168812 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2017/0077423 A1) and Kim et al. (“Bicarbazole-triazine hybrid type mixed host materials for blue phosphorescent OLEDs with enhanced efficiency and lifetime”, J. Mater. Chem. C. 2022, vol. 10, page 8602-8608) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-11, and 16-20 above, further in view of Liu et al. (“Isotope Effect of Host Material on Device Stability of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes”, Small Sci. 2021, vol. 1, page 2000057-1 to -6, hereafter Liu).
Regarding claim 6, the Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound H1-67 of Ahn as a host, Compound A of Wolohan as a host, and Compound 4 of Wolohan as an emitter), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition; the Compound H1-67 of Ahn is a first compound; the Compound A of Wolohan is a second compound.
The Compound A of Wolohan does not comprises a deuterium atom; however, Wolohan does teach the substituent of the compound of Wolohan represented by Formula I of Wolohan can be substituted by deuterium ([0082], [0101]).
Liu discloses a carbazole compound substituted by deuterium and used as the host of an organic light emitting device (Abstract, Fig. 1a).
Liu teaches that the deuterated host provides extended device lifetime due to the heavier deuterium atom having slower kinetic rate for unwarranted chemical reasons (page 2, col. 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 A of Wolohan by substituting at least one deuterium atom as taught by Wolohan and Liu.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide extended device lifetime due to the heavier deuterium atom having slower kinetic rate for unwarranted chemical reasons 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). Substitution of hydrogen with deuterium as the substituents of the compound of formula I of Wolohan 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 Wolohan having identical structure as the Compound A of Wolohan except that at least one hydrogen atom is replaced by deuterium.
The modification also provides a composition comprising the Modified compound of Wolohan and the Compound H1-67 of Ahn.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan et al. (US 2020/0168812 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2017/0077423 A1) and Kim et al. (“Bicarbazole-triazine hybrid type mixed host materials for blue phosphorescent OLEDs with enhanced efficiency and lifetime”, J. Mater. Chem. C. 2022, vol. 10, page 8602-8608) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-11, and 16-20 above, further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0104682 A1, hereafter Shin).
Regarding claims 13-15, the Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound H1-67 of Ahn, Compound A of Wolohan, and Compound 4 of Wolohan), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition; the Compound H1-67 of Ahn is a first compound; the Compound A of Wolohan is a second compound.
The emission layer of the device comprises three compounds and no boron-based compound; however, Wolohan does teach that the emitter of the device is not limited and can be a fluorescent, phosphorescent, or TADF material ([0144]). Wolohan further teaches that the device of Wolohan can comprise a sensitizer and a delayed fluorescent acceptor ([0106]).
Shin discloses an organic light emitting device ([0012]), wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound of Formula 1 of Shin as a host ([0038]), a second compound of Formula 2 of Shin as a host ([0054]), a third compound which is a metal complex of Formula 3 ([0062]), and a fourth compound which is a boron-based compound represented by Formula 4-1 ([0095]).
Shin teaches that the organic light emitting device of Shin provides high efficiency and lifetime ([0005]).
The Compound A of Wolohan, the Compound H1-67 of Ahn, the Compound 4 of Wolohan are each encompassed by the Formulas 1, 2, and 3 of Shin. An ordinary skill in the art would know that modification of the organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim by adding the fourth compound to the emission layer according to the teaching of Shin would provide high efficiency and lifetime to the device.
Shin exemplifies Compound D-11 ([0101]).
PNG
media_image4.png
340
271
media_image4.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 Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn and Kim by incorporating the Compound D-11 of Shin in the emission layer, as taught by Wolohan and Shin.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency and lifetime to the device, 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 Organic light emitting device of Wolohan as modified by Ahn, Kim, and Shin comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (the first Compound H1-67 of Ahn, the second Compound A of Wolohan, Compound 4 of Wolohan as a sensitizer, and Compound D-11 of Shin as an emitter), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, and the Compound D-11 of Shin is a multiple resonance TADF material.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2022/0131095 A1, hereafter Ko).
Regarding claims 1-11 and 13-20, Ko discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an organometallic compound of Formula 1 ([0008]).
Ko exemplifies an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound HTH30, Compound ETH2, Compound BD1, and Compound DFD7), and a second electrode (Table 2, Example 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
573
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound HTH30 of Ko has identical structure as Applicant’s first compound of the instant claims.
The Compound ETH2 of Ko is not a compound not comprising a silicon containing group; however, Ko does teach that Compound ETH77 can be used as the electron transport host compound ([0276]).
PNG
media_image6.png
269
357
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound ETH77 of Ko has identical structure as Applicant’s second compound of the instant claims.
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 Ko by substituting the electron transporting host ETH2 with a compound ETH77, as taught by Ko.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of exemplified electron transporting host compounds 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 Ko comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound HTH30, Compound ETH77, Compound BD1, and Compound DFD7), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition; the Compound HTH30 is a first compound; the Compound ETH77 is a second compound; the Compound BD1 is an emitter and a sensitizer, and the organic light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-20.
The Modified organic light emitting device of Ko reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device: 1) a triplet (T1) energy level of the first compound is greater than about 2.8 eV (claim 2); 2) the emitter emits blue light (claim 8); and 3) the first compound and the second compound form an exciplex and a maximum emission wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed from the first compound and the second compound is in a range of about 450 nm to about 490 nm (claim 18).
It is reasonable to presume that Modified organic light emitting device of Ko inherently possesses the properties 1) to 3) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states: 1) in an embodiment, a triplet (T1) energy level of the first compound is greater than about 2.8 eV ([0007], [0029]); 2) in an embodiment, the emitter emits blue light ([0009], [0054]); and 3) in an embodiment, the first compound and the second compound form an exciplex and a maximum emission wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed from the first compound and the second compound is in a range of about 450 nm to about 490 nm ([0040]).
The Compound HTH30 has identical structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment H2 ([0078]). The Compound ETH77 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 ([0079]) and similar structure as Applicant’s embodiment E1 ([0091]). The Compound BD1 has substantially similar structure as Applicant’s specific embodiment P31 ([00306]). The claimed properties are determined by the emission layer materials of the OLED device, and each of the emission layer materials of the Modified organic light emitting device of Ko are identical to or substantially similar as Applicant’s specific embodiments.
Therefore, Modified organic light emitting device of Ko possesses the properties 1) to 3) above, meeting all the limitations of claims 2, 8, and 18.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Modified organic light emitting device of Ko is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
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
Prosecution Insights