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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
This Office action has been made non-final, because the rejections of claims 12-14 were not necessitated by amendment.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 7 July 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1 and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendments to claims 1, 18, and 20 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 19 has overcome the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US 2023/0232651 A1) (hereafter “Gao”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2023/0232651 A1) (hereafter “Gao”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xia (US 2019/0211038 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US 2023/0232651 A1) (hereafter “Gao”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2023/0232651 A1) (hereafter “Gao”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xia (US 2019/0211038 A1) (hereafter “Xia”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see the final paragraph of p. 41 through the 2nd paragraph of p. 42, filed 7 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 11-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0348596 A1) (hereafter “Fleetham”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 3, 5, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0348596 A1) (hereafter “Fleetham”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly cited references below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0098708 A1) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5: Kim discloses the compounds shown below {p. 10}.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 110759937 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 13: Zhang discloses the compounds shown below {p. 8}.
PNG
media_image2.png
258
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
252
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chong et al. (CN 111377953 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Chong”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 13-14: Chong discloses the compounds shown below {p. 14}.
PNG
media_image4.png
290
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0098708 A1) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 18: Kim discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Claim 18 differs from claim 1 in that the compound of claim 1 is comprised in an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode. The organic layer comprising the compound of claim 1.
Kim does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Gao described above.
However, Kim teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0039]-[0044] and [0117]}. The organic layer comprises light emitting layer {paragraph [0042]} and the light emitting layer can comprise the compound of Kim shown above {paragraph [0042]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Kim by using it as the material of the light emitting layer of the device of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0098708 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Lamansky et al. (US 20020182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 20: Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 18 in that the organic light emitting device of claim 18 is comprised in a consumer product.
Kim does not teach a consumer device comprising the organic light emitting device of Kim described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic optoelectronic devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic optoelectronic devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic optoelectronic device of Ikenaga to be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12, 15-17, and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined in the Office action of 25 November 2025, Kottas et al. (US 2011/0278556 A1) (hereafter “Kottas”) is a representation of the closest prior art. However, neither Kottas nor the broader prior art provide teaching or motivation to modify the compounds of Kotta such that one of the instant X1 to X16 is N.
Additionally, Kottas does not teach compounds meeting the current claim limitations in which the instant L is an organic linker. The general formula (Formula I described in paragraph [0016] of Kottas) of Kottas described that the substituent R1 is directly connected to the B atom of the general formula of Kottas. Neither Kottas nor the broader prior art provide teaches that the substituent R1 of Kottas can be an organic group comprising a substituent that would satisfy the instant Formula I.
Finally, Kottas does not teach compounds having the structure of the current claim 17. While several compounds are similar, each requires the substitution of a phenyl or biphenyl group onto the dibenzofuran group of the compound of Kottas shown above. There is no teaching in Kottas nor in the broader prior art that would render such a modification obvious.
Additionally, as outlined above, Kim et al. (US 2021/0098708 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) is a representation of the closest prior art. Kim does not teach the limitations of the current claim 10 (L is a direct bond) or 15-16, which requires the instant L to be a direct bond, a phenylene group, or a biphenylene group. Neither Kim nor the broader prior art teach or motivate modifying the compounds of Kim to have the structure required by the current claims 10 or 15-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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 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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights