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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The ODP rejections over copending Application Nos. 17611452 , 17056634, 17617579, 17612183 and U.S. Patent No. 11,991,922 have been obviated by terminal disclaimer filed 10/31/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under:
Kim et al (US 20210053998 A1, and WO 2020022751), Hatakeyama et al (US 20180301629 A1), and Do et al (KR 20190127529 A)
have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim2 (KR 102053569 B1).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under Suh et al (WO 2019164331, English equivalent US 20210184121 A1) and Dong et al (KR 20180112721) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 102(a2) over Hong et al (US 20210317147 A1, WO 2020050619 A1) is
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hong is not available under 102(a1) because it is published after the foreign priority date of the present application. However, a translation of the foreign priority document must be submitted to overcome the rejection:
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.
However, the rejection(s) under 102(a2) over Hong et al (US 20210317147 A1, WO 2020050619 A1) is overcome by the statement of common ownership on p97 of the Remarks filed 6/23/2026.
Applicant argues that since Ye does not contain an anthracene structure as the first or second organic compound, it would be difficult to combine Ye with the primary references. This argument is not convincing. The primary references, not Ye, are relied upon for the teaching of anthracene host, which is a common host in the art, and there would be a reasonable expectation of success when combining with the dopant of Ye.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210053998 A1, and WO 2020022751) in view of Kim2 (KR 102053569 B1).
Kim discloses an OLED with the claimed anode, cathode, and light emission layer [0003] wherein the light emission layer includes an anthracene compound [0014] that is preferably deuterated [0091]
PNG
media_image1.png
231
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[claim 1, 0014].
Exemplary embodiments include compound 2-11:
PNG
media_image2.png
256
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[p160] which is the compound of the current claim 14 [clms of 10/31/2025, p11 top row, far right]. Kim teaches that when the anthracene structure is substituted with deuterium as described above, it is possible to increase the lifetime of the organic electroluminescent element [0067]. R5 to R12 may also include C5-C30 aryl groups [0078].
Kim also discloses the light emitting layer including a boron dopant that may be deuterated [claim 1, 0075] having the formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
183
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[claim 1, p122] .
Kim does not disclose the exact boron compounds of the claims, however, as discussed above, discloses similar boron compounds used as dopants.
Kim2 discloses OLED compounds comprising a boron containing dopant having cyclic aliphatic groups and deuterium that read on the claimed Formula 203-3 including one specific structure below:
PNG
media_image4.png
75
109
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[abstract, claim 1, p17]. Kim2 also discloses the examples having similar hosts to the claimed anthracene host, only lacking the deuterium structure:
PNG
media_image5.png
190
133
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[0486, p149, Examples]. Kim2 teaches that the boron containing dopants provide superior efficiency and lifespan characteristics, as well as excellent color purity [final paragraph].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have used the structures of the claims for the boron containing compounds of Kim because Kim2 teaches that the compounds provide superior efficiency and lifespan characteristics, as well as excellent color purity.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al (KR 20190127529 A) in view of Kim2 (KR 102053569 B1).
Do discloses an OLED having an anode and a cathode and an organic light emitting layer comprising an anthracene-based compound that reads on claimed formula 1 and a boron-based compound that reads on claimed formula 2 [abstract, claim 1] wherein the anthracene compound includes deuterated embodiments such as 2-16 [p13] and 2-51 [p16] and the boron compound includes deuterated embodiments that are deuterated by more than 40% such as compounds 1-58 [p6], 1-200, and 1-202 [p11]:
PNG
media_image6.png
158
94
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
162
102
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
91
90
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
126
102
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
128
108
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Do discloses the anthracene compound with the generic formula:
PNG
media_image11.png
135
130
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein R14 to R21 include deuterium [p4].
Do discloses the generic formula of the boron containing compounds
PNG
media_image12.png
186
202
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 to R11 a C7-C30 aralkyl group [claim 1].
Do further discloses that in both compounds all the hydrogen atoms may be deuterium [claim 1, formula 1 and 2] meaning that all the disclosed embodiments can be fully deuterated.
Do does not disclose the exact boron compounds of the claims, however, as discussed above, discloses similar boron compounds used as dopants.
Kim2 is combined with Do for the same reasons it is combined with Kim above.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 20180301629 A1) in view of Kim2 (KR 102053569 B1).
Hatakeyama discloses an OLED with an anode and a cathode layer and a light emission layer comprising a boron compound of formula (1) and an anthracene compound of the formula (3) [abstract] wherein at least one hydrogen atom is replaced with deuterium in each compound [0035, 0051] and all the hydrogens may be replaced by deuterium atoms [0096, 0162]. There are several examples of the boron compound that are similar to the claimed formula 203-3 including
PNG
media_image13.png
190
426
media_image13.png
Greyscale
[p17]
Illustrative examples of the anthracene compounds include
PNG
media_image14.png
365
400
media_image14.png
Greyscale
[p56]
Which read on the claimed embodiments [see p41 of the claims for comparison], as well as
PNG
media_image15.png
257
368
media_image15.png
Greyscale
[p58]
Which read on the claimed embodiments [see p50 of the claims]. Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama also discloses naphthobenzofuranyl groups [p59].
Hatekayama does not disclose the exact boron compounds of the claims, however, as discussed above, discloses similar boron compounds used as dopants.
Kim2 is combined with Hatekayama for the same reasons it is combined with Kim above.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al (KR 20190127529 A) in view of Hong et al (US 20210317147 A1, WO 2020050619 A1).
Do, discussed above, does not disclose the specific structures of the Formula 208.
Hong discloses an OLED comprising the compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image16.png
180
261
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
108
385
media_image17.png
Greyscale
with specific examples including the structure below left, compare to the claimed structure on the right:
PNG
media_image18.png
314
407
media_image18.png
Greyscale
[p12]
PNG
media_image19.png
193
208
media_image19.png
Greyscale
[p94 of clms 2/13/2026].
The compounds may be substituted with deuterium and deuterated substituents [0063]. Hong teaches that including a silicon atom (Si) in a core structure of the compound, molecular rigidity increases and, as a result, excellent morphological stability is obtained. An organic light emitting device having high efficiency, low voltage and long lifetime properties can be obtained, and when including the compound of the present disclosure in a light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device, an organic light emitting device having high color gamut can be manufactured [0018].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the silicon bridged boron compounds of the claims as the boron compounds of Do because Hong teaches that including a silicon atom (Si) in a core structure of the compound, molecular rigidity increases and, as a result, excellent morphological stability is obtained. An organic light emitting device having high efficiency, low voltage and long lifetime properties can be obtained, and when including the compound of the present disclosure in a light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device, an organic light emitting device having high color gamut can be manufactured.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 20180301629 A1) in view of Hong et al (US 20210317147 A1, WO 2020050619 A1).
Hong is combined with Hatakeyama for the same reasons it is combined with Do above.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210053998 A1, and WO 2020022751) in view of Hong et al (US 20210317147 A1, WO 2020050619 A1).
Hong is combined with Kim for the same reasons it is combined with Do and Hatakeyama above.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al (KR 20190127529 A) in view of Ye et al (WO 2019218969).
Do, discussed above, does not disclose the specific structures of the Formula 208.
Ye discloses OLEDs comprising a host and a guest material including a boron compound [clm 1] having the general formula:
PNG
media_image20.png
210
207
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
157
196
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Wherein X1 and X3 are independently represented as N(R), C(R)2 or Si(R)2 and others [p3]. Therefore Ye teaches that a silicon bridge in the boron compound is equivalent to the absence of a bridge disclosed in Do
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the silicon bridge of the claims in the boron compound of Do because Ye teaches that the claimed unbrigded compound and the silicon-bridged compound of Do are functionally equivalent and it is prima facie obvious to substitute art-recognized functional equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP § 2144.06; In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 20180301629 A1) in view of Ye et al (WO 2019218969).
Ye is combined with Hatakeyama for the same reasons it is combined with Do above.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20210053998 A1, and WO 2020022751) in view of Ye et al (WO 2019218969).
Ye is combined with Kim for the same reasons it is combined with Do and Hatakeyama above.
Other References
He et al (US 20190378982 A1, WO 2018095394 A1) discloses an OLED wherein the composition an organoborane similar to the claimed Formula 208 having the structure:
PNG
media_image22.png
176
322
media_image22.png
Greyscale
wherein Z1 to Z3 include N(R) and Si among several others. This compound may be deuterated and is combined with a second compound that may have anthracene as a constituent. However, no specific examples include Si as a Z atom and none include Z1 to Z3 being different. Furthermore, there are 13 different embodiments for Z1 to Z3 [claim 1]. It would require excessive hindsight on the part of the Office to arrive at the claimed composition with the Formula 208.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art to claim 18 is represented by Suh et al (WO 2019164331, English equivalent US 20210184121 A1), which discloses OLEDs having compounds of the generic and specific structures below, similar to Formula 206 of the claims:
PNG
media_image23.png
226
247
media_image23.png
Greyscale
.
PNG
media_image24.png
135
187
media_image24.png
Greyscale
However, W1 and W2 must be S or O, rather than the NRa1 of the claims in Formula 206. The above compounds, while similar to the claimed Formulae 204, 205 and 207, would not suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce those compounds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights