DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites the phrase “one of Z1 and Z2 is NR7”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “one of Z1 or Z2 is NR7” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the phrase “wherein the emissive layer comprise” which appears to be a typographic error of “wherein the emissive layer comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “L is a single bond or the aromatic ring having the following structure of Formula
Claim 10 recites the limitation “L is a single bond or the aromatic ring having the following structure of Formula
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 1, 5, 10, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lygaitis et al (US 2018/0016493).
Regarding claim 1, Lygaitis et al discloses the following compound (Page 10 – Compound 2h):
PNG
media_image1.png
669
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
55
99
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where m is two (2); and L is a single bond.
A corresponds to Formula 3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
120
96
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A1 is N;
A2 and A3 are CR1, where R1 is fluorine, i.e. a halogen;
A4 is C-CN; and
A5 is a carbon atom linked to D.
D corresponds to Formula 8 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
134
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z1 is single bond;
Z2 is NR7, where R7 is a C1 alkyl;
R3 and R4 are hydrogen; and
the integers s and t are both four (4).
Regarding claim 5, Lygaitis et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the claims do not required Formula 3, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, Lygaitis et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode, comprising: an anode, i.e. a first electrode; a cathode, i.e. a second electrode, facing the first electrode; and a light emitting layer disposed between the anode and cathode ([0129]-[0135] and Figure 1).
The light emitting layer comprises the following compound ([0137] and Page 10 – Compound 2h):
PNG
media_image1.png
669
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
55
99
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where m is two (2); and L is a single bond.
A corresponds to Formula 3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
120
96
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A1 is N;
A2 and A3 are CR1 where R1 is fluorine, i.e. a halogen;
A4 is C-CN; and
A5 is a carbon atom linked to D.
D corresponds to Formula 8 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
134
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z1 is single bond;
Z2 is NR7, where R7 is a C1 alkyl;
R3 and R4 are hydrogen; and
the integers s and t are both four (4).
Regarding claim 15, Lygaitis et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 16, Lygaitis et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting layer comprises a host compound, corresponding to the recited first compound, and the compound discussed above is an emitter compound, corresponding to the recited second compound ([0002] and [0174]).
Regarding claim 18, Lygaitis et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises a light emitting layer, i.e. a first emitting material layer, disposed between the first and second electrodes; and a hole conductor layer, i.e. a second emitting material layer, disposed between the first electrode and the light emitting layer, i.e. the first emitting material layer ([0129]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 19, Lygaitis et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises an electron conductor layer, i.e. a third emitting material layer, disposed opposed the hole conductor layer, i.e. the second emitting material layer ([0129]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 20, Lygaitis et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises a substrate (Figure 1). Accordingly, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a substrate and an organic light emitting diode disposed over the substrate.
In light of the above, it is clear that Lygaitis et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al (US 2009/0302742).
Regarding claim 1, Komori et al discloses the following compound (Page 27 – Compound 41):
PNG
media_image5.png
400
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
55
99
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where m is two (2); and L is a single bond.
A corresponds to Formula 3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
120
96
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A1 is N;
A2 is CR1, where R1 is C6 aromatic group;
A3 is N;
A4 is C-R1, where R1 is hydrogen; and
A5 is a carbon atom linked to D.
D corresponds to Formula 8 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
134
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z2 is single bond;
Z1 is NR7, where R7 is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic group;
R3 and R4 are hydrogen; and
the integers s and t are both four (4).
The difference between the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed is that in the compound disclosed by the reference, A4 is CR1, where R1 is hydrogen, while the claims require a C-CN group. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (4) ([0020]):
PNG
media_image6.png
450
352
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the linking group Ar3 can be substituted by a cyano group ([0039]-[0040]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where A4 is C-CN.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses linking groups such as ([0040] and Page 6- Y-9):
PNG
media_image7.png
171
209
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the reference discloses that A corresponds to Formula 5 of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
122
148
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A3 is N;
R8 is the C6 aryl in the compound discussed above;
A1 is C linking to D; and
A2 is C-CN.
Regarding claim 3, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses linking groups such as ([0040] and Page 6 - Y-18):
PNG
media_image9.png
162
231
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the reference discloses that A corresponds to Formula 6 of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
120
146
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is D; and R8 is the phenyl group in the compound discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses linking groups such as ([0040] and Page 6- Y-9):
PNG
media_image11.png
157
225
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the reference discloses that A corresponds to Formula 7 of the claims:
PNG
media_image12.png
154
154
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where:
one (1) R1 is D;
the other R1 is hydrogen; and
R8 is the phenyl group in the compound discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the claims do not required Formula 3, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses linking groups such as ([0040] and Page 10- Y-80):
PNG
media_image13.png
210
467
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
i.e. L has the structure of Formula 3:
PNG
media_image14.png
153
348
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
where p is zero (0) and q is one (1)
Furthermore, as discussed above, in the compound disclosed by the reference, Z2 is single bond; and Z1 is NR7, where R7 is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic group.
Regarding claim 8, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses Compound 1-49 of the claims:
PNG
media_image15.png
296
212
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 10, Komori et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode, comprising a light emitting layer disposed between the anode and cathode, i.e. first and second electrodes (Abstract). The light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Page 27 – Compound 41):
PNG
media_image5.png
400
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
55
99
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where m is two (2); and L is a single bond.
A corresponds to Formula 3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
120
96
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A1 is N;
A2 is CR1, where R1 is C6 aromatic group;
A3 is N;
A4 is C-R1, where R1 is hydrogen; and
A5 is a carbon atom linked to D.
D corresponds to Formula 8 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
134
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z2 is single bond;
Z1 is NR7, where R7 is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic group;
R3 and R4 are hydrogen; and
the integers s and t are both four (4).
The difference between the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed is that in the compound disclosed by the reference A4 is CR1, where R1 is hydrogen, while the claims require a C-CN group. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (4) ([0020]):
PNG
media_image6.png
450
352
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the linking group Ar3 can be substituted by a cyano group ([0039]-[0040]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where A4 is C-CN.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses linking groups such as ([0040] and Page 6- Y-9):
PNG
media_image7.png
171
209
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the reference discloses that A corresponds to Formula 5 of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
122
148
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where:
A3 is N;
R8 is the C6 aryl in the compound discussed above;
A1 is C linking to D; and
A2 is C-CN.
Regarding claim 12, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses linking groups such as ([0040] and Page 6- Y-18):
PNG
media_image9.png
162
231
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the reference discloses that A corresponds to Formula 6 of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
120
146
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is D; and R8 is the phenyl group in the compound discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses linking groups such as ([0040] and Page 6 - Y-9):
PNG
media_image11.png
157
225
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the reference discloses that A corresponds to Formula 7 of the claims:
PNG
media_image12.png
154
154
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where:
one (1) R1 is D;
the other R1 is hydrogen; and
R8 is the phenyl group in the compound discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 16, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent compound, corresponding to the recited first compound, and the compound discussed above is a host compound (Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises a light emitting layer, i.e. a first emitting material layer, disposed between the anode and cathode; and a hole transporting layer, i.e. a second emitting material layer, disposed between the anode, i.e. first electrode, and the light emitting layer, i.e. the first emitting material layer (Figure 1 and [0049]).
Regarding claim 19, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises an electron transporting layer, i.e. a third emitting material layer, disposed opposed the hole transporting layer, i.e. the second emitting material layer (Figure 1 and [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the light emitting device further comprises a substrate (Figure 1 and [0049]). Accordingly, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a substrate and an organic light emitting diode disposed over the substrate.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al (US 2009/0302742) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-20 above, and in view of Raj (US 2013/0043803).
The discussion with respect to Komori et al as set forth in Paragraph 14 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 17, Komori et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the light emitting layer may have a structure in which a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer are stacking on each other to emit white light ([0225]). However, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises a third compound as recited in the present claims.
Raj discloses that the most common techniques for generating white light in an organic light emitting device include multi-layer structures of red, blue, and green emitters and doping of a single emission layer with multiple emitters ([0006]).
In view of the teaching in Raj that a common technique for generating white light in organic light emitting devices is to combine multiple dopants in a single layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the red, blue and green dopants in the organic light emitting device disclosed by Komori et al to obtain a single light emitting layer comprising a third compound, i.e. either the red or green emitter, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
In light of the amendments to the claims requiring that m is two (2), the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Jeon et al set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn given that the reference does not disclose a compound where m is two (2), i.e. the reference does not disclose a compound comprising two (2) substituents encompassed by Formula 8 of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image4.png
134
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding the amendments to claims 1 and 10 reciting Compounds 1-21 and 2-2, i.e.
PNG
media_image16.png
256
448
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
it is noted that while Jeon et al discloses formulas that encompass these compounds, it is significant to note that the data pointed to by Applicants regarding the unexpected nature of these compounds is found to be persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicants compare Inventive Examples 2 and 22, which utilize Inventive Compounds 1-2 and 2-2 (see above), to Comparative Examples 3 and 10, which utilize Reference Compounds 3 and 10:
PNG
media_image17.png
310
306
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
310
262
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.
The data is the Specification demonstrates that the presence of the cyano (CN) group on the pyrimidine and pyridine rings of the inventive compounds results in unexpected increase in the luminous T95 lifetime as compared to the comparative compounds which do not possess a CN group. Given that Jeon et al does not disclose that the presence of the CN group results in such lifetime increases, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at Compounds 1-2 and 2-2 recited in the present claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights