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 June 25, 2026. Claims 1, 9, 13, and 14 were amended. Claims 15 and 16 were added. Claims 6, 8, and 11 are canceled claims. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12-16 are pending.
Rejections over now canceled claims are withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claim 14 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment received June 25, 2026.
The previous rejection of claims 13 and 14 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of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the amendment.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed June 25, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon Kim et al. (US 2022/0006019 A1) as set forth in the last Office action because:
The experimental evidence is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claimed compounds. Further, more than one group is different among the “inventive” compounds and the comparative compounds. For example, BD-13 comprises different groups on the nitrogens and accordingly, differs in more ways than the fused ring sulfur-containing groups. Also, there is little difference in the lifetime performance of Example 64 DB-13 and Comparative Example 2. The analysis merely states “substantially” higher efficiency and lifetime without statistical analysis. MPEP 716.02 states “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
The declaration sets forth four “inventive” compounds, but applicant claims a multitude of specific boron-containing compounds in claim 13 from page 50 to page 204 of the claim set. The examples relied on by applicant as evidence of unexpected results do not provide an adequate basis to support a conclusion that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claims will behave in the same manner, and therefore, the evidence is not persuasive of nonobviousness because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. (See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
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 1-5, 7-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0006019 A1).
Kim et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising a plurality of light emitting materials including anthracene compound(s) of Formula 1 and second compound(s) of Formula 2 (see par. 8) in a light emitting layer in a device structure (see par. 71, 72). .
Formula (1) is the following per instant Formulas “1”:
PNG
media_image1.png
234
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see par. 8).
R1 to R8 are defined in par. 12, L1 and L2 are defined in par. 10, and Ar1 and Ar2 are defined in par. 11. “Dn” represents n hydrogens are replaced with deuterium (see par. 13). More specifically, Formula 1 includes at least H-60 per instant Formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image2.png
158
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(middle page 16)
H-260 per instant Formula 1-3:
PNG
media_image3.png
140
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(top page 42).
Formula 2 is the following (see par. 14-19) per instant Formula 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
138
224
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
In Formula 2, Y1 is B and X1 and X2 are nitrogen-containing (NR) (see par. 17-18). The rings A, B, and C are independently substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl or substituted or unsubstituted 3- to 50-membered heteroaryl (see par. 16). Accordingly, rings A to C may each be aryl such as phenyl (see par. 25) and at least one of B or C may be heteroaryl group including benzofuranyl, benzothiophenyl, or indolyl (see par. 26) per instant 2-C group. Substituted is defined to include a hydrogen atom replaced with deuterium (see par. 29).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Formula 1 compound comprise n number of deuterium, which may include 30% deuteration of instant claim 2 and/or deuteration corresponding to instant claim 3 (see Formula 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teaches “at least one of first compound”, which includes using two of the anthracene compounds of Formula 1 (see par. 8).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the above discussed Kim et al. compounds H-260 and H-60 read upon compounds of the claims, respectively.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, in Formula 2, X1 and X2 are NR (see par. 14 and 18). The R may include at least C6 aryl, which includes phenyl (see par. 19, 25). Y1 is B (see par. 17). The rings A, B, and C are independently substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aryl or substituted or unsubstituted 3- to 50-membered heteroaryl (see par. 16). Accordingly, rings A to C may each be aryl such as phenyl (see par. 25) and at least one of B or C may be heteroaryl group including benzofuranyl, benzothiophenyl, or indolyl (see par. 26) per instant 2-C group. Substituted is defined to include a hydrogen atom replaced with deuterium (see par. 29, 16-19). Regarding at least the following specific instant compound of instant claim 13, Kim et al. Formula 2 ring A may be selected as phenyl substituted with methyl alkyl, ring B may be selected as dibenzofuranyl substituted with tert-butyl alkyl, ring C may be selected as benzothiophenyl substituted with tert-butyl alkyl, and NRs per X1 and X2 may be selected as phenyl aryl substituted with tert-butyl alkyl, and Y1 may be selected as boron (see par. 14-19, 25, 26, 29):
PNG
media_image5.png
122
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[Instant compound of claim 13 – see page 197 (as printed mid page) of 6/25/2026 claim set.]
Regarding claim 14, at least X1 and X2 of Formula 2 may be NR where R may be linked to an A, B, or C ring (which include substituted aryl - par. 16) to form a ring (see par. 19). Substituents linking to form a ring is described to include alicyclic ring (see par. 28).
Regarding claim 15, ring A may be substituted or unsubstituted (par. 25). In at least above described compound the same as a compound in claim 13, a corresponding instant R3 group is taught to include alkyl (see par. 14-19, 25, 26, and 29). Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. X1 and X2 are NR (see par. 14 and 18). The R may include at least C12 aryl, which includes aryl biphenyl (par. 19) explicitly listed to include a 2-biphenyl (par. 25).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. as discussed above teaches at least H-60 per instant Formula 1-1 where “n” deuteriums may be present:
PNG
media_image2.png
158
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(middle page 16).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. as discussed above teaches at least H-260 per instant Formula 1-3:
PNG
media_image3.png
140
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(top page 42).
While Kim et al. does not appear to teach an example device where a specific Formula 2 compound with at least one fused heteroaryl group as ring B or C was selected for a light emitting layer of a device in combination with Formula 1 deuterated anthracene compound(s) as discussed above, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select materials of the reference for a device structure, choosing as the compounds, those described above, wherein the resultant compounds for a light emitting layer would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational light emitting device within the disclosure of Kim et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the claim scope of claim 1 has been narrowed somewhat in the amendment received June 25, 2026, applicant still claims a large number of compounds that are not commensurate in scope with the presented comparative evidence. As noted above, the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed June 25, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon Kim et al. (US 2022/0006019 A1) as set forth in the last Office action because:
The experimental evidence is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claimed compounds. Further, more than one group is different among the “inventive” compounds and the comparative compounds. For example, BD-13 comprises different groups on the nitrogens and thereby differs in more ways than just the fused ring sulfur-containing groups. Also, there is little difference in the lifetime performance of Example 64 DB-13 and Comparative Example 2. The analysis merely states “substantially” higher efficiency and lifetime without statistical analysis. MPEP 716.02 states “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
The declaration sets forth four “inventive” compounds, but applicant claims a multitude of specific boron-containing compounds in claim 13 from page 50 to page 204 of the claim set. The examples relied on by applicant as evidence of unexpected results do not provide an adequate basis to support a conclusion that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claims will behave in the same manner, and therefore, the evidence is not persuasive of nonobviousness because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. (See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
Applicant’s arguments regarding new claims 15 and 16 are not persuasive as the new claims have also been rejected over Kim et al. in this office action.
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.
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