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 .
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 1-8, 10-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1, hereafter Jeong) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1, hereafter Geum).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-11, and 16-18, Jeong discloses a compound (Formula 1) used as the light emitting dopant of a light emitting element ([0017], [0046]-[0050]) and exemplifies Compound 47 ([0059]). In the Formula 1, X1 and X2 can be each O, S, Se, or N(R12) ([0047]).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 47 of Jeong, the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 (i.e. see the annotation in the figure above) is not substituted by two substituents, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 1; however, Jeong does teach that the group at R12 can be substituted with one or more substituent of a heteroaryl group having 5 to 60 nuclear atoms ([0047]). Jeong exemplifies a di-substituted phenyl group at the position corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 (see examples in [0047] including at least Compound 67).
PNG
media_image2.png
329
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 47 of Jeong by substituting two dibenzofuranyl groups in the phenyl group corresponding R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong, as taught by Jeong.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Modified compound of Jeong.
PNG
media_image3.png
275
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Jeong has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the dibenzofuranyl groups are each substituted to the meta positions of the phenyl group of R12 (i.e. see the annotations in the figure above), while Applicant’s Formula 1 requires the substituents to be substituted at ortho positions. However, Jeong does teach that the substituent of the phenyl group corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 can be substituted to any position of the phenyl group including ortho position (see examples in [0059] including at least Compound 4).
Furthermore, it is known in the art that the ortho substitution of the phenyl group bonded to the nitrogen atom of a B,N-heterocyclic compound provide benefits to the compound used in a light emitting element, as taught by Geum.
Geum discloses a B,N-containing heterocyclic compound used as the emitting dopant of a light emitting element ([0011]-[0012]).
Geum teaches that an ortho position centered on a carbon atom that is linked to the nitrogen atom of the B,N-containing heterocyclic compound provides prevented aggregation of molecules and minimized stacking between molecules such that it is possible to expect high efficiency when the compound is applied to a light emitting element ([0037]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Jeong by substituting the substitution positions of the dibenzofuranyl groups each from meta to ortho position of the phenyl group corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong, as taught by Jeong and Geum.
The motivation of doing so would have been to prevent aggregation of molecules and minimize stacking between molecules such that it is possible to expect high efficiency when the compound is applied to a light emitting element, based on the teaching of Geum.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Change of the substitution positions of the substituents in the phenyl group corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum.
Furthermore, as an alternative rejection over Jeong alone, even if there were no secondary teaching reference by Geum, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skill in the art to substitute the dibenzofuranyl groups to the ortho positions of the phenyl corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong.
First, there are finite number of substitution positions for the dibenzofuranyl groups. The selection of the ortho position would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Second, the Modified compounds of Jeong is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the dibenzofuranyl groups are substituted to the ortho positions of the phenyl group corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified compound of Jeong such that the dibenzofuranyl groups are substituted to the ortho positions of the phenyl group corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong. A compound in which the dibenzofuranyl groups are substituted to the ortho positions of the phenyl group corresponding to R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong would represent a position isomer of the Modified compound of Jeong. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
PNG
media_image4.png
348
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-18.
Jeong in view of Geum does not disclose a specific light emitting element comprising the Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1); however, Jeong does teach that the compound of Jeong can be used as the emitting dopant ([0017]).
Jeong teaches the structure of a light emitting element a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer containing a dopant and a host, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode ([0060]-[0064], [0194]-[0195]).
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 Jeong as modified by Geum (1) by incorporating it with a host into the emission layer of a light emitting element, as taught by Jeong.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a light emitting element.
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 the emitting dopants of Jeong in the device of Jeong would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) as a dopant, and a host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10-11.
Regarding claims 3-4, 7-8 and 19, the Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) reads on all the features of claims 1 and 16 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) as a dopant, and a host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) is not symmetric; that is, the phenyl group at the right side of the molecule and corresponding to the R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong is not substituted; however, Jeong does teach that the R12 group of the N(R12) at the position X2 of Formula 1 of Jeong can be substituted with one or more substituent of a heteroaryl group having 5 to 60 nuclear atoms ([0047]). Jeong teaches that a dibenzofuranyl group can be the heteroaryl group (see examples in [0059] including at least compound 47). Jeong further teaches the compounds of Jeong being symmetric (see examples in [0059] including at least compounds 251 to 258).
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 Jeong as modified by Geum (1) by incorporating two dibenzofuranyl group to the ortho positions of the phenyl group corresponding to the R12 group of the N(R12) at the position X2 of Formula 1 of Jeong such that the resultant compound becomes symmetric, as taught by Jeong.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified substituents of the R12 group of the N(R12) at the position X2 of Formula 1 of Jeong the 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
321
703
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (2).
The modification also provides Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (2) comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (2) as a dopant, and a host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Light emitting element s of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) and (2) read on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including the emission layer emits 1) delayed fluorescence (claim 3), and 2) light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (claim 4).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) (or (2)) inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The emission properties of a light emitting element is determined by the light emitting dopant of the device.
The instant specification states that the compound of Formula 1 may be a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and the emission layer of the invention may emit delayed fluorescence ([0013], [00205], [00207], [00209]). The instant specification states that the compound of Formula 1 may be a luminescent material having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm and the emission layer of the invention may emit light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm ([0014], [00206]).
The Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) and (2) each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Therefore, Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) (or (2) wherein the emission layer emits 1) delayed fluorescence (claim 3), and 2) light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (claim 4), meeting all the limitations of claims 3-4.
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 Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) and (2) 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.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-11, and 16-19 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0181350 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, the Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) as a dopant, and a host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) does not contain deuterium; however, Jeong does teach that the substituents at the positions corresponding to R6 and R9 can be substituted alkyl, wherein the substituent of the alkyl can be deuterium ([0047]). Jeong further teaches that the substituent of the phenyl group corresponding to R12 can be further substituted by alkyl ([0047]).
Hatakeyama discloses B,N-containing heterocyclic compound wherein at least one hydrogen is substituted by deuterium ([0009], [0017]). Hatakeyama exemplifies Compound 1-16 ([0125]).
PNG
media_image6.png
207
575
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama teaches that introduction of deuterium provides improved luminous efficiency and lifetime ([0125], Abstract).
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 Jeong as modified by Geum (1) by incorporating CD3 groups into the positions R6 and R9 and the para position of the phenyl group at R12 of the of Formula 1 of Jeong with deuterium, as taught by Jeong and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide improved luminous efficiency and lifetime, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
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 the substituents at the positions R6 and R9 and the substituents of the R12 of Formula 1 of Jeong the 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 Jeong as modified by Geum and Hatakeyama.
PNG
media_image7.png
363
656
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2020/0176679 A1) in view of Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-11, and 16-19 above, further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0104682 A1, hereafter Shin).
Regarding claims 14-15, the Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) as a dopant, and a host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The device does not comprise specific cohosts and a Pt sensitizer; however, Jeong does teach that the emission layer of the device can further include other materials than the compound of Jeong ([0062]-[0063]).
Shin discloses a light emitting device comprising a first compound, a second compound, a third compound, and a fourth compound ([0012]). The Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) is directed to the fourth compound of Formula 4 of Shin ([0093]).
Shin exemplifies HT-09 as the first compound, ET-8 as the second compound, Compound 9 as the third compound (Example 1 in Table 1 and [0101]).
PNG
media_image8.png
332
844
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Compounds HT-09, ET-8, and 9 of Shin have identical structure as Applicant’s Formula HT-1, ET-1, and D-1 of the instant claims.
Shin teaches that the device of Shin provides high efficiency and longer lifetime ([0005]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) by incorporating Compound HT-09 as a host, Compound ET-8 as a host, Compound 9 as a sensitizer, and the Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) as a dopant into the emission layer, as taught by Jeong and Shin.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency and longer lifetime, based on the teaching of Shin.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting element of Jeong as modified by Geum and Shin comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound HT-09 of Shin as a host, Compound ET-8 as a host, Compound 9 as a sensitizer, and Compound of Jeong as modified by Geum (1) as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, 16-17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 15 of Application No. 18/122,266 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘266). 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. It should be noted that Application ‘266 has been allowed on 04/28/2026 while a patent number has not been provided yet; thus, this rejection is not provisional.
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 16-17, and 19, Application ‘266 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compounds 17 (or 22) (claim 15) and at least one of second compound of Formula HT-1 or a third compound of Formula ET-1.
PNG
media_image9.png
375
351
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
355
391
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The Compounds 17 and 22 of Application ‘266 each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-17, and 19.
The light emitting element of Application ‘266 comprising Compound 17 reads on all the features of claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 11.
The light emitting element of Application ‘266 comprising Compound 22 reads on all the features of claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-11.
The Light emitting element of Application ‘266 read on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including the emission layer emits 1) delayed fluorescence (claim 3), and 2) light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (claim 4).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting element of Application ‘266 inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The emission properties of a light emitting element is determined by the light emitting dopant of the device.
The instant specification states that the compound of Formula 1 may be a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and the emission layer of the invention may emit delayed fluorescence ([0013], [00205], [00207], [00209]). The instant specification states that the compound of Formula 1 may be a luminescent material having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm and the emission layer of the invention may emit light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm ([0014], [00206]).
The Compound 17 and 22 each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Therefore, Light emitting element of Application ‘266, wherein the emission layer emits 1) delayed fluorescence (claim 3), and 2) light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (claim 4), meeting all the limitations of claims 3-4.
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 Light emitting element of Application ‘266 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.
The light emitting element of Application ‘266 does not comprise a fourth compound; however, Application ‘226 does teach the emission layer further comprises a fourth compound of Formula M-b (claim 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting element of Application ‘266 by incorporating a fourth compound of Formula M-b in the emission layer, as taught by Application ‘266.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting element of Application ‘266 comprises a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compounds 17 (or 22), at least one of second compound of Formula HT-1 or a third compound of Formula ET-1, and a fourth compound of M-b, meeting all the limitations of claims 14-15.
Regarding claim 12, the Light emitting element of Application ‘266 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compounds 17 (or 22).
In the Compound 17, the substituent at the position corresponding to Rz11 of Applicant’s Formula 6 of the instant claim 12 is hydrogen; however, Application ‘266 does teach the phenyl group at the position R4 of Formula 1 can be a substituted aryl group (claim 1) and exemplifies a t-butyl group (see examples including at least Compound 7 in claim 15).
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 17 of Application ‘266 by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R4 of formula 1 with a t-butyl group, as taught by Application ‘266.
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 17 of Application ‘266 having identical structure as Compound 17 except that the hydrogen at the position corresponding to Rz11 of Applicant’s Formula 6 of the instant claim 12 is a t-butyl group.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 14-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-12 of copending Application No. 18/057,124 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘124). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 16-18, Application ‘124 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compounds 96 (claim 9).
PNG
media_image11.png
313
306
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The Compound 96 of Application ‘124 each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-18.
The light emitting element of Application ‘124 comprising Compound 96 reads on all the features of claims 1, 5-6, and 9-11.
The Light emitting element of Application ‘124 read on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including the emission layer emits 1) delayed fluorescence (claim 3), and 2) light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (claim 4).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting element of Application ‘124 inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The emission properties of a light emitting element is determined by the light emitting dopant of the device.
The instant specification states that the compound of Formula 1 may be a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and the emission layer of the invention may emit delayed fluorescence ([0013], [00205], [00207], [00209]). The instant specification states that the compound of Formula 1 may be a luminescent material having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm and the emission layer of the invention may emit light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm ([0014], [00206]).
The Compound 96 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Therefore, Light emitting element of Application ‘124, wherein the emission layer emits 1) delayed fluorescence (claim 3), and 2) light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (claim 4), meeting all the limitations of claims 3-4.
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 Light emitting element of Application ‘124 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.
Regarding claims 14-15, the Light emitting element of Application ‘124 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 96), and a second electrode.
The light emitting element of Application ‘124 does not comprise one of second and third compound and a fourth compound; however, Application ‘226 does teach the emission layer further comprises a second compound of Formula H-1 (claim 10), a third compound of Formula H-2 (claim 11), and a fourth compound of Formula M-b (claim 12).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting element of Application ‘124 by incorporating a second compound of Formula H-1, a third compound of Formula H-2, and a fourth compound of Formula M-b in the emission layer, as taught by Application ‘124.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting element of Application ‘124 comprises a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compounds 96, a second compound of Formula H-1, a third compound of Formula H-2, and a fourth compound of Formula M-b, meeting all the limitations of claims 14-15.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 14-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-12 of copending Application No. 18/089,887 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘887). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1, 3-11, and 16-19, Application ‘887 discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compounds 96 (claim 15) and at least one of second compound of Formula 2, a third compound of Formula 3, and a fourth compound of Formula 4.
PNG
media_image12.png
327
383
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The Compound 56 of Application ‘887 each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims, meeting all the limitations of claims 16-19.
The light emitting element of Application ‘887 comprising Compound 56 reads on all the features of claims 1 and 5-11.
The Light emitting element of Application ‘887 read on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including the emission layer emits 1) delayed fluorescence (claim 3), and 2) light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (claim 4).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting element of Application ‘887 inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The emission properties of a light emitting element is determined by the light emitting dopant of the device.
The instant specification states that the compound of Formula 1 may be a thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and the emission layer of the invention may emit delayed fluorescence ([0013], [00205], [00207], [00209]). The instant specification states that the compound of Formula 1 may be a luminescent material having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm and the emission layer of the invention may emit light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm ([0014], [00206]).
The Compound 56 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Furtehrmore, Application ‘887 teaches the properties 1) and 2) (claims 2-3).
Therefore, Light emitting element of Application ‘887, wherein the emission layer emits 1) delayed fluorescence (claim 3), and 2) light having a central wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (claim 4), meeting all the limitations of claims 3-4.
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 Light emitting element of Application ‘887 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.
Regarding claims 14-15, the Light emitting element of Application ‘887 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 56), and a second electrode wherein the emission layer further comprises at least one of second compound of Formula 2, a third compound of Formula 3, and a fourth compound of Formula 4.
The light emitting element of Application ‘887 does not comprise one of second and third compound and a fourth compound; however, Application ‘226 does teach the emission layer further comprises a second compound of Formula 2, a third compound of Formula 3, and a fourth compound of Formula 4 (claim 5).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting element of Application ‘887 by incorporating a second compound of Formula 2, a third compound of Formula 3, and a fourth compound of Formula 4, as taught by Application ‘887.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting element of Application ‘887 comprises a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises Compounds 56, a second compound of Formula 2, a third compound of Formula 3, and a fourth compound of Formula 4, meeting all the limitations of claims 14-15.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Jeong is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Jeong teaches a B,N-containing fused polycyclic compound and a light emitting element comprising the same; however, Jeong does not teach any of the specific embodiments of claims 13 and 20, as required in the instant claims 13 and 20, respectively.
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
