DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received January 21, 2026. Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15-18, and 21 were amended. Claims 13 and 20 are canceled. Claim 23 is new. Claims 4, 5, and 8-12 are withdrawn. (Note that there are inconsistent status identifiers within the claim listing.) Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 14-19, and 21-23 are under consideration.
The current elected species is:
PNG
media_image1.png
40
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 6, 7, 14-19, and 21-23 are under consideration.
The office notes that some of the withdrawn claims are no longer within the scope of independent claim language and would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) if/when under consideration. Amendment is suggested.
The rejection of claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0060825) is withdrawn.
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 21 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. 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 21 recites compound 3-3, but the compound does not include a CD3 substituent group at the bonding location corresponding to Z2 required in parent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 21 includes a material outside the scope of claim 1 upon which it depends.
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 1-3, 6, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1).
Regarding compounds of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 21, Kim et al. teaches Formula 1 compounds for an organic light emitting device (see abstract):
PNG
media_image2.png
207
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
In the above formula, X may be selected as B (see par. 10). Y1 and Y2 may be selected as NR4 (see par. 11-12). The ring groups A1 to A3 may be carbocyclic or heterocyclic group (see par. 9). With respect to A1 and A3, the rings may be benzene (see par. 55-46) and A2 may be selected as heterocyclic (see par. 53-54) ring group azadibenzofuran (see par. 57 – later portion of paragraph). The Kim et al. R1 to R3 substituent groups may be hydrogen, alkyl, or substituted alkyl (e.g., methyl CH3) among others (par. 13, 71-73) where substituents of the “substituted” groups may include at least one deuterium (see par. 18-20, 73) with respect to instant “one of R4 to R6 is CD3” (i.e., when each of the hydrogens of a methyl group is substituted with deuterium). While it is not seen where a Formula 1 compound is exemplified where A2 is selected as one of the listed heterocyclic groups and also at least one alkyl group (e.g., methyl) substituted by deuterium is present on the Formula 1 compound as the R2 group, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a Kim et al. Formula 1 compound with the defined groups wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional compound for an operational device within the disclosure of Kim et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21 and at least instant compounds 3-1, 3-3, and 3-7, as noted above in Kim et al. Formula 1, A1 and A3 may be selected as benzene ring, A2 may be azadibenzofuran ring (see par. 57), a R2 may be selected as alkyl substituted with at least one deuterium, which includes CD3 (see par. 71, 73), and R4 of Y1 and Y2 may be phenyl (see par. 87-88).
Claims 14-19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2020/138867 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0098991 A1).
Yoon teaches that an organic electroluminescent device can have a structure where the organic electroluminescent device has an organic light-emitting layer including a vertical stack of a first light emitting part (530), a second light emitting part (550), a third light emitting part (570), a first charge-generating layer (CGL 580), and a second charge generating layer (CGL 590) in between the light emitting parts ([0372] and [383]), wherein the multiple light emitting layers may render any of blue, red, green, or yellow ([376], [378], and [380]). This could include two blue emitting layers per instant claim 16. Further, per instant claim 19, Yoon teaches an organic light emission display device including a color filter that absorbs light generated from the organic electroluminescent device wherein the color filter patterns that absorb the red, green, and blue light may be disposed separately on a pixel basis, wherein each of these color filter patterns may overlap with a corresponding organic light - emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device that emits light having a corresponding wave length and by adopting the color filter, and thereby allow the organic light emission display device to render a full color range ([392], [397], and [398]. Yoon et al. does not appear to teach the specific use of a material the same as instant formula 1 as material in a light emitting layer. In analogous art, Kim et al. teaches Formula 1 compounds for an organic light emitting device (see abstract):
PNG
media_image2.png
207
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
In the above formula, X may be selected as B (see par. 10). Y1 and Y2 may be selected as NR4 (see par. 11-12). The ring groups A1 to A3 may be carbocyclic or heterocyclic group (see par. 9). With respect to A1 and A3, the rings may be benzene (see par. 55-46) and A2 may be selected as heterocyclic (see par. 53-54) ring group azadibenzofuran (see par. 57 – later portion of paragraph). The Kim et al. R1 to R3 substituent groups may be hydrogen, alkyl, or substituted alkyl (e.g., methyl CH3) among others (par. 13, 71-73) where substituents of the “substituted” groups may include at least one deuterium (see par. 18-20, 73) with respect to instant “one of R4 to R6 is CD3” (i.e., when each of the hydrogens of a methyl group is substituted with deuterium). While it is not seen where a Formula 1 compound is exemplified where A2 is selected as one of the listed heterocyclic groups and also at least one alkyl group (e.g., methyl) substituted by deuterium is present on the Formula 1 compound as the R2 group, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a Kim et al. Formula 1 compound with the defined groups wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional compound for an operational device within the disclosure of Kim et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 22 compounds 3-1 to 3-9, as noted above in Kim et al. Formula 1, A1 and A3 may be selected as benzene ring, A2 may be azadibenzofuran ring (see par. 57), a R2 may be selected as alkyl substituted with at least one deuterium, which includes CD3 (see par. 71, 73), and R4 of Y1 and Y2 may be phenyl (see par. 87-88). Further regarding a device structure of claims 14 and 15, a compound according to Kim et al. Formula 1 may be used as a dopant material in an emission layer (see Kim par. 48). With further respect to claim 15, a host material may be an anthracene derivative (see Kim par. 193). Primary reference Yoon also uses anthracene host material (see Yoon abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate display component features as taught by Yoon et al. and include material(s) known for use in a light emitting layer of a device as taught by Kim et al. and thereby arrive at the claimed device, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I.(A). One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising the materials and layer structure as taught by Yoon et al. and Kim et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Where a claimed improvement of a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple
substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a
piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex
Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727,
1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Accordingly, applicant claims a combination that only
unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the
combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications
necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte
Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at
1396). Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the
combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than
the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the
simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges “significant” improvement of Ex12 to 14 over Ex15 to 16, but the efficiency values appear to be very close and it is unclear that statistical significance has been established. Further, the compound claims are not limited to only compound 3-1, 3-4, or 3-7 of the Examples 12-14. Also note dependent claim 21 recites compounds 3-1, 3-3, and 3-7. The examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant argues Kim does not have an aza dibenzofuran group, but the office maintains Kim provides for any of rings A1 to A3 as heterocyclic rings while the specific group is not shown in an example compound. A reference is relevant for all it contains.
With respect to the device claims, while a blue light emitting layer is now claimed, the material itself of formula 1 is not recited as blue emitting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Joo et al. US 2020/0172558 teaches compounds relevant to unelected species.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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