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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 03/31/2021. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 12/22/2025, no amendments were made.
The response is hereby entered.
Claims 1, 6, 13, and 15-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Examiner would like to thank Kyung-Tae Kim for the information presented in the affidavit dated 12/22/2025, which has been considered in its entirety and will be discussed herein.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that incorporation of a nitrogen atom at a position analogous to one of instant X1 through X11 directly results in improved external quantum efficiency, Examiner agrees.
In light of the affidavit dated 12/22/2025 and Applicant’s remarks, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 6, 13, and 15-19 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0217963 A1), and of claim 20 as being unpatentable over Choi above and further in view of Xia et al. (US 2015/0214494 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made below.
Accordingly, a new Non-Final office action is furnished herein to replace the Non-Final office action dated 06/26/2025.
Specifically, while the affidavit dated 12/22/2025 demonstrates increased external quantum efficiency when a nitrogen atom is introduced in one of instant X1 through X11, this effect was already known to the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as taught by Ahn et al. (US 2020/0328352 A1), as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 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.
With respect to claim 13, the claim contains embodiments of Chemical Formula A which do not conform with the limitation that only one of X1 to X11 is a nitrogen atom. These embodiments include at least Compounds 73 through 75, 77 through 81, and 99.
Please note that this list is non-limiting and the entire claim should be checked for additional embodiments not within the scope of parent claim 1.
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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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, 6, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0094000 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0328352 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hatakeyama discloses an organic EL element comprising a first electrode (a positive electrode, anode), a second electrode (a negative electrode, cathode), and an organic layer between the two electrodes (paragraph 0385), and the organic layer comprises a blue light emitting layer-forming composition comprising a polycyclic aromatic compound with high fluorescence quantum yield and high color purity (paragraph 0183), which is represented by general formula (A) (paragraph 0181), such as Compound 1-2623 (page 43), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from general formula (A), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
226
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama also teaches that any of rings A, B, or C can be a heteroaryl ring (paragraph 0184), such as a pyridine ring (paragraph 0203, line 6).
However, Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest that selecting one of rings A, B, or C results in improved external quantum efficiency.
In analogous art, Ahn teaches an organic electroluminescence device having high luminous efficiency as a result of including a compound of Formula 1, which comprises at least one nitrogen atom at a position analogous to instant X1, X3, or X4 through X11.
Ahn teaches that a compound comprising a nitrogen atom at one of instant X1 or X3 has excellent electron transport property, and the difference between the lowest singlet energy level and lowest triplet energy level is smaller than comparative analogues which lack a nitrogen atom. Ahn also teaches that the life-time of the triplet exciton is short, giving the compound less probability to cause triplet-triplet annihilation when the device is driven, and accordingly, the efficiency with which the energy of the exciton is converted into light energy is increased, improving luminous efficiency (paragraphs 0153-0154).
Further, by way of example, in Table 2 (page 21), a direct comparison is made between Compound 18 and Compound C2, which are pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image3.png
342
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
344
460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
These compounds differ only in the presence of a nitrogen atom at a position analogous to instant X1, but demonstrate significantly different maximum external quantum yield (Table 2).
As an artisan of ordinary skill would recognize that maximum external quantum yield and external quantum efficiency demonstrate a positive correlation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a nitrogen atom into the compound of Hatakeyama at a position analogous to one of instant X1 or X3 in order to achieve a compound with short life-time of the triplet exciton, and less probability to cause triplet-triplet annihilation when the device is driven, and accordingly, improve the efficiency with which the energy of the exciton is converted into light, as taught by Ahn.
Such a modification produces a compound of instant Chemical Formula A wherein X1 is nitrogen and all other X characters are their respective C-Rn designation, R10 is an amine moiety represented by Structural Formula A, Z is boron, Y1 is NR23, Y2 is NR26, and R23 and R26 are an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl).
In Structural Formula A, L1 and L2 are the same and are a single bond, Ar1 and Ar2 are the same and are an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl).
With respect to claim 6, Hatakeyama and Ahn teach the organic light-emitting diode of claim 1, and R23 and R26 are the same and are each an unsubstituted phenyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 15, Hatakeyama and Ahn teach the organic light-emitting diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the organic layer comprises at least a hole transport layer (paragraph 0385 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least a hole transport layer into the organic layer of the claimed diode, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Hatakeyama and Ahn teach the organic light-emitting diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches an organic layer (a light emitting layer) between the electrodes (paragraph 0385 and Figure 1), and the light emitting layer includes the compound discussed above as a dopant in combination with an anthracene host compound (paragraph 0404, and Formula B-1 in paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound as a dopant in the emitting layer of a device with the claimed structure along with an anthracene host, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Hatakeyama and Ahn teach the organic light-emitting diode of claim 16, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the light-emitting layer uses an anthracene derivative host material (paragraph 0278 and Formula B-1). Hatakeyama gives an example of the anthracene host material in Compound B-1-5 (page70), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
222
494
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula D when Ar9 and Ar10 are both an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), k is 1, L13 is an arylene of 10 carbon atoms (naphthyl), and R31 through R38 are hydrogen atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the anthracene compound of Hatakeyama as a host material for the boron dopant of Hatakeyama and Ahn as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 19, Hatakeyama and Ahn teach the organic light-emitting diode of claim 15, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the compounds of the invention may be formed into an organic material layer using a wet method or a vapor deposition process (paragraph 0401).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the layers of the organic light emitting device using a wet method or a vapor deposition process, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 20, Hatakeyama and Ahn teach the organic light-emitting diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the diode of the invention can be applied to a display apparatus (paragraph 0491), such as a flat panel display (paragraph 0493).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light-emitting diode of Hatakeyama and Ahn in the manufacture of a flat panel display, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786