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 dated August 29, 2025. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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 1-12 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-58 per per instant Formula 1-2:
PNG
media_image3.png
148
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(top page 16).
H-260 per instant Formula 1-3:
PNG
media_image4.png
140
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(top page 42).
Formula 2 is the following (see par. 14-19) per instant Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
138
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
In Formula 2, Y1 is B and X1 and X2 are nitrogen (see par. 17-18). More specifically Formula (2) may be Formula (2-1) where R24 and R25 “may be linked to an adjacent substituent to form a ring (see par. 55-56) per instant Y5 bridging group of instant Formula 2 and may be further substituted per instant Z7 and Z8 (see par. 56):
PNG
media_image6.png
174
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Note that X1 and X2 as N may be bonded to an aryl group per instant groups R4 and R5.
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 5-7, the above discussed Kim et al. compounds H-58, H-260, and H-60 read upon compounds of the claims, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, 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).
Regarding claim 9, Formula 2 may comprise deuterium (see par. 16-19, 29).
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 11, Kim et al. as discussed above teaches at least H-58 per instant Formula 1-2 where “n” deuteriums may be present:
PNG
media_image3.png
148
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(top page 16).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. as discussed above teaches at least H-260 per instant Formula 1-3:
PNG
media_image4.png
140
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(top page 42).
While Kim et al. does not appear to teach an example device where a specific Formula 2 compound with R24 and R25 joined together was selected for a light emitting layer of a device in combination with Formula 1 anthracene compound(s), 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0006019 A1) in view of Yuuki (US 2020/0185626 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-58 per per instant Formula 1-2:
PNG
media_image3.png
148
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(top page 16).
H-260 per instant Formula 1-3:
PNG
media_image4.png
140
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(top page 42).
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 5-7, the above discussed Kim et al. compounds H-58, H-260, and H-60 read upon compounds of the claims, respectively.
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 11, Kim et al. as discussed above teaches at least H-58 per instant Formula 1-2 where “n” deuteriums may be present:
PNG
media_image3.png
148
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(top page 16).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. as discussed above teaches at least H-260 per instant Formula 1-3:
PNG
media_image4.png
140
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(top page 42).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 13 instant Formula 2 compounds, Kim et al. teaches Formula 2 is the following (see par. 14-19):
PNG
media_image5.png
138
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
In Formula 2, Y1 is B and X1 and X2 are nitrogen (see par. 17-18). More specifically Formula (2) may be Formula (2-1) where R24 and R25 “may be linked to an adjacent substituent to form a ring (see par. 55-56) per instant Y5 bridging group of instant Formula 2 and may be further substituted per instant Z7 and Z8 (see par. 56):
PNG
media_image6.png
174
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Note that X1 and X2 as N may be bonded to an aryl group per instant groups R4 and R5.
However, it is not seen where Kim et al. teaches a specific Formula 2 example compound the same as instant claim 13. In analogous art, Yuuki teaches Formula 2 compounds for use in an emission layer of a light emitting device (see Yuuki abstract and par. 71):
PNG
media_image7.png
176
306
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula, Y may be boron, Z1 and Z2 may be nitrogen (see Yuuki par. 63), R1 and R2 as a pair may be -Si(Ra)2- where Ra is aryl (see Yuuki par. 73, 66). R3 may be alkyl methyl (see Yuuki par. 72, 56). The compound with these selected defined groups is at least the same as the following compound of instant claim 13:
PNG
media_image8.png
128
106
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(see last page of instant claim set, labeled page 127 in 8/29/2025 claim set).
Further, a deuterium may be included per instant claim 9 (see Yuuki par. 72). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected a Formula 2 emission layer compound defined by Yuuki as an emission layer material in a device according to Kim et al., because one would expect Yuuki formula 2 compounds to be similarly useful for emission in a light emitting layer is a device structure according to Kim et al., which teaches a boron and nitrogen containing derivative is desirable for use in a light emitting layer. One would expect to achieve an operational device including materials according to Kim et al. and Yuuki with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the claims were somewhat narrowed in scope in the amendment, applicant continues to claim a large number of possible anthracene derivative and boron derivatives. On page 131 of the remarks, applicant argues “the OLED including the claimed host and dopant in its light emitting layer provides unexpectedly advantageous and superior results compared to the compounds of Kim”. In response, the few comparative compounds discussed are not considered commensurate in scope with the fair teachings of Kim. Additionally, while applicant sets forth several inventive examples, none of the claims are limited to only these very specific compounds and/or combinations of compounds. The cited comparisons of Ex. 76 to 78 to Comparative Ex. 1 to 5 in the remarks do not clearly show that the very specific selection of particular groups on an anthracene or boron derivative attribute to unexpected results commensurate with the breadth of claimed compounds. Also, too many variables and groups differ among the “inventive” and “comparative” examples to show the selection of groups upon an anthracene and groups/bonding of the boron derivatives (i.e. including a Y5 bridge in instant Formula 2) specifically selected and combined in the “inventive” examples clearly provided unexpectedly improved results. The office submits that 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).)
Further, the arguments with respect to the rejection over Kim in view of Yuuki are not considered persuasive as no specific arguments with respect to material taught by Yuuki were set forth. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclar & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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