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 .
Election/Restrictions
As discussed in the previous rejection, Applicant elected Species A having the structure of claim 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
126
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, as discussed below, this elected species is not anticipated or obvious over the prior art. Accordingly, the search was expanded to find an examinable species based on MPEP § 803.02. It is noted that the prior art search has not been extended to cover all nonelected species.
The next examinable species is: Species A having the structure recited in claim 2 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
103
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examinable species reads on claims 1-7, 10-14, 16-20.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1-2, 13, 15-17, and 20 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 03/17/2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 2, 13, 15, and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 12-13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamatani (US 2020/0044159 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamatani is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamatani in view of So (US 2014/0158993 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 10-14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi (English translation of KR 20150027443 A obtained from Espacenet) in view of Kottas (US 2011/0279019 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Kottas and Min (US 2011/0303908 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Kottas and So (US 2014/0158993 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 42-45 of the reply dated 03/17/2026 with respect to the rejections as set forth in the previous Office Action have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the compound shown below which reads on the claimed Formula I wherein ZA is O, ZB is O, and ZC is NR; and RA is a combination of hydrogen, silyl, and a boryl (BA1A2).
PNG
media_image3.png
198
210
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, claim 1 (of which claim 15 depends upon) recites the newly added proviso that requires if one of RA or RB is BA1A2 and ZC is not a direct bond, then ZC is not NR. Since the compound above does not satisfy the proviso, it is unclear how the compound reads on the amended claim. For purposes of examination, the compound above will be interpreted as not present.
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 15 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.
As discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 15, the compound above does not properly depend from the formula recited in claim 1. If the compound above is selected, it does not satisfy all the requirements of Formula I. Thus claim 15 does not properly depend from 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 12-13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2020/0058885 A1).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 12-13, Hong teaches an organic light emitting device having improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime characteristic by including a compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract). Examples of the compound represented by Formula 1 include the compound below on page 34.
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
131
171
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hong’s compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
70
165
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hong’s compound fails to read on the claimed Formula I as it contains more than 8 rings fused together. However, in Formula 1, Hong teaches rings A1 to A3 are each independently a C6-20 aromatic ring or a C2-60 heteroaromatic ring (¶ [0010]). Additionally, Hong teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 wherein ring A1 is a C6-20 aromatic ring (benzene) and ring A2 is a C2-60 heteroaromatic ring, as shown by the compound below on pg. 28.
Hong’s compound on pg. 28:
PNG
media_image6.png
296
223
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Hong, in Hong’s compound on pg. 34, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heteroaromatic group
PNG
media_image5.png
70
165
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in the location of ring A1 with benzene (as shown by Hong’s compound on pg. 28), because Hong teaches ring A1 may suitably be selected as benzene. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the device of Hong and possess the benefits taught by Hong above. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound of Hong is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula I.
modified compound:
PNG
media_image7.png
370
474
media_image7.png
Greyscale
I:
PNG
media_image8.png
157
470
media_image8.png
Greyscale
species formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
103
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modified compound reads on the claimed formulas (claims 1-2) wherein:
X3 to X10 are each C (claims 4-7);
ZA (or X12) is CR, ZB is O, and ZC (or X11) is CR;
RA is a combination of hydrogen, amino, and a boryl (BA1A2) (claim 3);
RB is hydrogen (claim 3);
R of ZA and ZC are each hydrogen (claim 3);
A1 and A2 are each a substituted aromatic group and A3 is not required to be present; and
A1 combines with RA of X6 to form a ring (claim 12).
Additionally, the modified compound reads on the second structure on page 11 of claim 13.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Hong teaches the modified compound for use in an organic light emitting device, as described above with respect to claim 1.
While Hong fails to specific teach an example of a device including the modified compound, Hong does teach examples of devices having the structure of anode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, light emitting layer, electron transport layer, and cathode, wherein the light emitting layer includes a compound represented by Formula 1 as a dopant (¶ [0220]-[0222]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified compound as a dopant in a device having the structure as described in ¶ [0220]-[0222], because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hong according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device having improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime characteristic, as taught by Hong. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per claim 19, the modified compound represented by Formula 1 is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence compound (¶ [0072]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 2020/0058885 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of So (US 2014/0158993 A1), as evidenced by Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2024.
Regarding claims 17-19, Hong teaches the organic light emitting device including the modified compound in the light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 16.
Hong fails to teach the modified compound is used as an acceptor and fails to teach the organic light emitting device further includes a phosphorescent sensitizer in the light emitting layer. However, Hong does teach the modified compound is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence compound (¶ [0072]).
So teaches a novel molecule including a phosphorescent sensitizer group, a fluorescent acceptor group, and an electron-transport barrier that suppresses triplet-triplet energy transfer between the sensitizer group and acceptor group (abstract and ¶ [0024]). The molecule is included in the organic emissive layer (¶ [0030]). An organic light emitting device including such a molecule provides high efficiency and longer lifetime (abstract).
So teaches the phosphorescent sensitizer groups may include Ir(ppy)3, which is a known phosphorescent emitter1, and the fluorescent acceptor groups may include fluorescent emitting compounds and polycyclic aromatic compounds (¶ [0025]; see compounds on pages 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a molecule of So including a sensitizer group in the light emitting layer of the device of Hong, wherein the Hong’s modified compound is provided as the fluorescent acceptor, to obtain a device with high efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by So, and to provide a device having improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime characteristic, as taught by Hong.
Likewise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select Ir(ppy)3 as the phosphorescent sensitizer group, as this would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a phosphorescent sensitizer group taught by So and possessing the benefits taught by So. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising So’s molecules having the benefits taught by So in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting device comprises the modified compound as an acceptor and the phosphorescent emitter of Ir(ppy)3 as a sensitizer (claim 18).
Per claim 17, Ir(ppy)3 reads on the claimed ligand
PNG
media_image9.png
233
104
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein Y1 to Y8 are each carbon, and Ra and Rb each represent four substitutions of hydrogen.
Per claim 19, as the modified compound is used as a fluorescent acceptor, the modified compound is a fluorescent emitter.
Regarding claim 20, Hong in view of So teach the organic light emitting device including the modified compound in the light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 19.
Hong in view of So fail to teach the organic light emitting device is a consumer product. However, So does teach the device may be used in a flexible display in a consumer device (¶ [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Hong in view of So in a flexible display of a consumer device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hong and So according to known methods to yield predictable results of a an organic light emitting device having improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime characteristic, as taught by Hong, and to obtain a device with high efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by So. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (English translation of CN 109651364 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1-7, 10-11, 13, and 16, Cao teaches an organic electroluminescent device having excellent luminous efficiency, long service life, and a lower driving voltage by including an organic electroluminescent compound represented by general formula I (middle of pg. 2). The organic electroluminescent device includes an anode, a light-emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the compound represented by general formula I is provided in the light-emitting layer (beginning of pg. 16 and bottom of pgs. 17 and 27).
Examples of compounds represented by general formula I include SLC-201 (pg. 15).
I:
PNG
media_image10.png
168
283
media_image10.png
Greyscale
SLC-201:
PNG
media_image11.png
133
275
media_image11.png
Greyscale
SLC-201 fails to read on the claimed Formula I as it comprises a biphenyl linking group between the boryl and the main core rather than a direct bond. However, Cao does teach R2 may be a C6-60 boron-containing aryl group (middle of pg. 2). Additionally, Cao teaches examples of compounds in which R2 is an aryl group substituted by a heteroatom-containing aryl group (as shown in SLC-201 and SLC-171), and teaches examples of compounds in which R2 is a heteroatom-containing aryl group (as shown in SLC-105) (see structures on pgs. 10 and 13). That is, SLC-105 exemplifies a compound wherein a direct bond connects the heteroatom-containing aryl group of R2 and the main core.
Accordingly, in the location of R2, Cao teaches the main core may be connected to a heteroatom-containing aryl group via an arylene linking group (as shown in SLC-201 and SLC-171), and alternatively, the main core may be connected to a heteroatom-containing aryl group via a direct bond (as shown in SLC-105).
SLC-171:
PNG
media_image12.png
202
237
media_image12.png
Greyscale
SLC-105:
PNG
media_image13.png
209
253
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Cao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the biphenyl of R2 in SLC-201 with a direct bond, because Cao teaches R2 may be a C6-60 boron-containing aryl group and teaches the main core may be connected to a heteroatom-containing aryl group of R2 via direct bond (as shown in SLC-105). The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the organic electroluminescent device of Cao and possess the benefits taught by Cao above. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified SLC-201 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula I (claim 1) and formula of claim 2.
modified SLC-201:
PNG
media_image14.png
301
334
media_image14.png
Greyscale
I:
PNG
media_image8.png
157
470
media_image8.png
Greyscale
species formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
103
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modified SLC-201 reads on the claimed formulas (claims 1-2) wherein:
X3 to X10 are each C (claims 4-7);
ZA (or X12) is CR, ZB is NR, and ZC (or X11) is CR;
RA and RB are each hydrogen (claim 3);
R of ZA is hydrogen and R of ZC is boryl (BA1A2) (claim 3); and
A1 and A2 are each a substituted aromatic group, and A3 is not required to be present.
A1 and A2 are each substituted benzene (claim 10) and read on the claimed group of A5 (claim 11). Additionally, the modified SLC-201 reads on the sixth structure on page 11 of claim 13.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (English translation of CN 109651364 A obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of So (US 2014/0158993 A1), as evidenced by Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2024.
Regarding claims 17-19, Cao teach the organic electroluminescent device including the modified SLC-201 in the light-emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 16.
Cao fails to teach the modified SLC-201 is used as an acceptor and fails to teach the organic electroluminescent device further includes a phosphorescent sensitizer in the light-emitting layer. However, Cao does teach the compound of general formula I may be used as a fluorescent material (bottom of pg. 26).
So teaches a novel molecule including a phosphorescent sensitizer group, a fluorescent acceptor group, and an electron-transport barrier that suppresses triplet-triplet energy transfer between the sensitizer group and acceptor group (abstract and ¶ [0024]). The molecule is included in the organic emissive layer (¶ [0030]). An organic light emitting device including such a molecule provides high efficiency and longer lifetime (abstract).
So teaches the phosphorescent sensitizer groups may include Ir(ppy)3, which is a known phosphorescent emitter2, and the fluorescent acceptor groups may include fluorescent emitting compounds (¶ [0025]; see compounds on pages 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a molecule of So including a sensitizer group in the light-emitting layer of the device of Cao, wherein the modified SLC-201 is provided as the fluorescent acceptor, to obtain a device with high efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by So, and to provide a device with excellent luminous efficiency, long service life, and a lower driving voltage, as taught by Cao.
Likewise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select Ir(ppy)3 as the phosphorescent sensitizer group, as this would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a phosphorescent sensitizer group taught by So and possessing the benefits taught by So. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising So’s molecules having the benefits taught by So in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting device comprises the modified SLC-201 as an acceptor and the phosphorescent emitter of Ir(ppy)3 as a sensitizer (claim 18).
Per claim 17, Ir(ppy)3 reads on the claimed ligand
PNG
media_image9.png
233
104
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein Y1 to Y8 are each carbon, and Ra and Rb each represent four substitutions of hydrogen.
Per claim 19, as the modified SLC-201 is used as a fluorescent acceptor, the modified SLC-201 is a fluorescent emitter.
Regarding claim 20, Cao in view of So teach the organic electroluminescence device including the modified SLC-201 in the light-emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 19.
Cao in view of So fail to teach the organic electroluminescence device is a consumer product. However, So does teach the device may be used in a flexible display in a consumer device (¶ [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Cao in view of So in a flexible display of a consumer device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Cao and So according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic electroluminescence device with excellent luminous efficiency, long service life, and a lower driving voltage, as taught by Cao, and to obtain a device with high efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by So. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to the elected Species A having the structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
126
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
:
Applicant elected the above species in the reply filed 09/26/2024. The elected species reads on claims 1-7 and 10-20.
With regard to the instant claim 1 only, a search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As none of the claims were specifically drawn to the elected species in combination with the limitations of claim 1 in independent form, none of the claims have been indicated as allowable. However, claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of claim 1 as well as being limited to the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of claim 1 as well as being limited to the elected species would be allowable.
Claims 2-7, 10-14, and 16-20 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 as well as being limited to the elected species. This objection to the claims is only with respect to the elected species. It should be noted that claim 15 is not included due to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d).
It is noted that the potential allowability of claims 1-7, 10-14, and 16-20 has not been determined with respect to species beyond the elected species, i.e. potential examinable species that could found once the search is expanded beyond the elected species.
With respect to claim 1 and the elected Species A, the prior art does not teach or suggest a compound of the Formula I
PNG
media_image15.png
130
396
media_image15.png
Greyscale
which is further defined by the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
126
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one of RA, RB, R, R’, and R” is selected from the group consisting of BA1A2 and BA1A2A3; wherein if ZB is O, then ZA is not BR’; and if one of RA or RB is BA1A2 and ZC is not a direct bond, then ZC is not NR, in combination with the remainder of claim 1.
Yamatani (US 2020/0044159 A1), cited in the previous rejection dated 12/17/2025, is considered the closest prior art of record. Yamatani teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising an emission layer including a condensed polycyclic compound represented by one of Formula 1 to 3, wherein examples of the condensed polycyclic compound include compound 49 (abstract; ¶ [0004]-[0011]; pg. 8). Compound 49 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula I of claim 1 and formula of claim 2.
49:
PNG
media_image16.png
312
367
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Compound 49 fails to read on the claimed formula
PNG
media_image1.png
126
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein if ZB is O, then ZA is not BR’.
Yi (English translation of KR 20150027443 A obtained from Espacenet), cited in the previous rejection dated 12/17/2025, is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Yi teaches an organic electroluminescent device including light-emitting layer comprising a compound represented by chemical formula 1, and wherein the compound has high triplet energy and provides a device with excellent light emitting performance, low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan (¶ [0007]-[0010], [0017], [0031], [0062]). Examples of compounds represented by chemical formula 1 include compound 140 (pg. 16).
chemical formula 1:
PNG
media_image17.png
163
285
media_image17.png
Greyscale
140:
PNG
media_image18.png
152
137
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Compound 140 fails to include a boron substituent and thus fails to read on the claimed formula wherein at least one of RA, RB, R, R’, and R” is selected from the group consisting of BA1A2 and BA1A2A3.
Additionally, Yi fails to provide motivation to modify Yamatani’s compound 49 such that it reads on the claimed formula wherein if ZB is O, then ZA is not BR’. Accordingly, Yi fails to remedy the deficiencies of Yamatani.
Thus there is not prior art, either alone or in combination, which teaches or renders obvious a compound of the Formula I
PNG
media_image15.png
130
396
media_image15.png
Greyscale
which is further defined by the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
126
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one of RA, RB, R, R’, and R” is selected from the group consisting of BA1A2 and BA1A2A3; wherein if ZB is O, then ZA is not BR’; and if one of RA or RB is BA1A2 and ZC is not a direct bond, then ZC is not NR, in combination with the remainder of claim 1.
With respect to the next examinable Species A having the structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
103
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
:
The only structure of claim 14 that reads on the examinable species above is the structure
PNG
media_image19.png
147
144
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
With regard to the instant claim 14 only, a search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As claim 14 was not specifically drawn to the elected species in combination with the limitations of claim 14 in independent form, claim 14 has not been indicated as allowable. However, claim 14 written in independent form which requires all the limitations of claim 14 as well as being limited to the elected species above would be allowable. This indication of allowable subject matter is only with respect to the examinable species.
It is noted that the potential allowability of claim 14 has not been determined with respect to species beyond the examinable species, i.e. potential examinable species that could found once the search is expanded beyond the elected species.
With respect to claim 14 and the examinable species, the prior art does not teach or suggest a compound having the structure of
PNG
media_image19.png
147
144
media_image19.png
Greyscale
, in combination with the remainder of claim 14.
Kim (US 2016/0190475 A1) is considered the closest prior art of record. Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first compound represented by one of Formula 1-1 to 1-3 (abstract). Examples of the first compound include compound 5 (pg. 50).
5:
PNG
media_image20.png
169
230
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Compound 5 fails to read on the claimed structure
PNG
media_image19.png
147
144
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
Thus there is not prior art, either alone or in combination, which teaches or renders obvious a compound having the structure of
PNG
media_image19.png
147
144
media_image19.png
Greyscale
, in combination with the remainder of claim 14.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
1 Second page of Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2024.
2 Second page of Ir(ppy)3, Ossila, 2024.
Prosecution Insights