DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 30, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment dated December 1, 2025 is entered. Claims 1, 8, and 20 were amended. Claims 3, 4, and 10 are cancelled claims. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eum et al. (EP 2 182 040 A2) in view of Aziz et al. (US 2004/0209117) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109608402 (patent document was cited on 7/9/2024 Notice of References Cited form and a translation copy is provided with this office action).
[Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.]
CN ‘402 sets forth the following compound 1d, which is identical to compound #20 of claim 20 and is within the definition of a compound of claims 8-9 and 11-15 (see par. 32 of patent document):
PNG
media_image1.png
298
136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Per claim 16, R4 and R5 are not required. Per claim 17, R6 and R7 are not required. Per claim 18, the above compound 1d does not include the substituents. Per claim 19, the phenylene of compound 1d is para-bonded.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang, Zhi, et al. "Highly twisted bipolar emitter for efficient nondoped deep-blue electroluminescence." Dyes and Pigments 140 (2017): 328-336.
Huang et al. discloses compound DPACTPI (see Scheme 1, page 331) per instant compound claims 8, 9, and 11-19:
PNG
media_image2.png
154
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Per claim 16, R4 and R5 are not required. Per claim 17, R6 and R7 are not required. Regarding a device of claim 1, DPACTPI was used as a light emitting layer material in an example device further including a layer between the anode and light emitting layer and a layer between the light emitting layer and cathode (see left column, page 333 and non-doped devices at section 3.7 of page 333). Regarding claims 5 and 6, as material the same as recited instant 1-C, the properties of claims 5 and 6 are considered inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Regarding claim 7, no organometallic compound for a light emitting layer is taught.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2015/0239880) (cited on 01/17/2024 I.D.S.).
Adachi et al. teaches organic light emitting devices comprising Formula (1) compounds (see par. 11) , which may be specifically be of general Formula (3) compounds (see par. 64 and claim 3 on pages 39-40) per instant Formula 1C of claims 1 and 8:
PNG
media_image3.png
222
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula, X may be selected as O, S, C(R12)(R13) or Si(R14)(R15) among others (see par. Claim 3, page 39) where R12 to R15 may be selected as substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group or substituted or unsubstituted aryl group (see claims 1 and 3 on pages 39-40), Y may be O, S, N-R16 (see claims 1 and 3 on page 39). Note that pairs of R33 + R34 as well as R31 + R32 “may be bonded to each other to form a cyclic structure” (see end of claim 3, page 40), which results in a structure the same as a phenanthrene ring formed of instant R1 and R2 joining. The definitions encompass compounds the same as claimed in instant Formula 1C – for instance, at least when in Formula (3) pairs of R33 and R34 as well as R31 and 32 bond to form a cyclic structure, Y is N-R16 with R16 as aryl phenyl (see par. 53 and claims 1 and 3, page 39-40), and X is O, the Formula (3) is the same as at least specific compound “22” of instant claim 20:
PNG
media_image4.png
124
152
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(instant compound 22).
With respect to the device of claims 1-7, Formula 1 compounds are taught for use in a device structure (see par. 144). As noted above, Formula 3 is of general Formula 1. An example device includes a Formula 1 compound as dopant material with host CBP in a light emitting layer (see par. 144) per claims 1 and 3. Further layers include a hole transport layer of NPD and an electron layer of TPBi (see par. 144) per claim 2. With regard to claim 4, the example device structure includes host material CBP and a Formula 1 dopant is included at 6.0% by weight (see par. 144). With regard to claim 5, a Formula 1 compound may be the same as a preferred, instant specific compound (i.e., at least #22) and same compounds would be expected to have the same desired energy level properties as recited. Similarly, with respect to claim 6, a compound at least the same as a preferred, instant specific compound (#22) is rendered obvious and same compounds would be expected to have the same capability of fluorescent emission as recited. Additionally, compounds of Formula 1 are described as emitting delayed fluorescent light (see par. 147 and claim 10). Regarding claim 7, there is no organometallic compound required in the example light emitting device (see par. 144).
The Adachi et al. Formula (3) compounds may comprise a group according to at least instant group “2-3” of claim 9. With respect to claims 11 and 12, instant R3 may be phenyl as shown in a compound the same as instant #22 discussed above. With respect to claims 13-14, corresponding instant R1 and R2 link in a compound the same as a compound of #22 discussed above.
Regarding claims 16-17, R4 and R5 and R6 and R7 are not required by a compound according to Formula 1C, but when Adachi X is Si(R14)(R15) (see par. 48), it is noted the R14 and R15 may be alkyl such as methyl (see claims 1 and 3, page 39-40).
Regarding claim 18, the groups are not required.
Regarding claim 19, a Formula 3 compound the same as #22 discussed above comprises the heterocyclic “A1” group in a para-position per instant 10A formula.
While not all possible compounds defined within an Adachi et al. Formula 1 are exemplified, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds as defined in Formula 1 for use in a device wherein a resultant compound and device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds for operational devices within the disclosure of Adachi et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted the Adachi reference has been used in a rejection earlier in the prosecution of this application, but the reference was not relied upon for the same reasons as set forth above in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights