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 on June 11, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 22 were amended. Claims 6, 7, 17, 18, and 20 are cancelled claims. Claims 23 and 24 were added. Claims 1-5, 8-16, 19, and 21-24 are pending.
Previous rejections over now canceled claims are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 5 and 16 are 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.
Claims 5 and 16 recite formulas having a R23 variable, but variable R23 is undefined in the present claims. Accordingly, claims 5 and 16 are indefinite. Clarification and/or correction are required.
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, 9-16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 2009/0295275 A1).
Regarding compounds of instant Formula 1 and devices comprising instant Formula 1, Parham et al. teaches compounds of formula (1) for organic electronic devices (see par. 16):
PNG
media_image1.png
218
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
X may be selected as N and each Y is selected identically or differently as C(R1)2, BR1, NR1, Si(R1)2, PR1, O, S, SO, SO2, or C=O (see par. 18). Integer “n” is selected as 0, 1, or 2 (see par. 24). Accordingly, at least one Y may be selected as a BR1 group corresponding to the instant “at least one A1 and A2 is >B-X1-Y1”. R1 meanings include at least F, CN, alkoxy, thioalkoxy, S(=O)Ar2, S(=O)Ar, and OSO2R2 (see par. 19) where Ar is defined in par. 22 and R2 is defined in par. 21. R and R1 substituent groups are taught in paragraphs 19 and 20. Both of two Ys present may be selected as BR1 (see par. 18) where a R1 group may include at least alkoxy (see par. 19). The compound may be in an emitting layer between an anode and a cathode (see claim 25 on page 23).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, a Y may be selected as BR1 (see par. 18) with R1 as at least alkoxy (see par. 19).
Further regarding claims 3, 4, 14, and 15, R1 groups may bond to form further rings (see par. 19).
Further regarding claims 5 and 16, as noted above, the Y variables may be selected differently from one another (see par. 18).
Further regarding claims 9 and 21, two Y may be selected the same (see par. 18).
Further regarding claim 10, the compounds of formula (1) are fluorescent (see par. 58) and are used in combination with host material (see par. 56-57).
Regarding claims 11 and 22 and at least compound #27, Parham et al. one Y may be selected as C(R1)2 with R1s as alkyl with corresponding “n” as 1, one Y may be selected as BR1 with R1 as alkoxy (methoxy) with corresponding “n” as 1, the other Y is not present with a corresponding “n” as zero, two Rs are branched alkyl (tert-butyl), and X is N (see par. 16-20 and 29).
Instant #27:
PNG
media_image2.png
142
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
While Parham et al. does not appear to exemplify a formula (1) compound with groups and variables selected the same as the instant compounds, give the teachings of the reference it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds of the reference as described above, wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional device using compounds within the disclosure of Parham et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 2009/0295275 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0256538 A1).
Parham et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Parham et al. teaches compounds meeting the requirements of instant Formula 1 compounds as discussed above, but does not appear to teach specifically including deuterium atoms in place of hydrogen atoms. In analogous art, Hatakeyama et al. teaches polycyclic boron and nitrogen containing derivatives where “at least one hydrogen in the polycyclic aromatic compound…may be substituted by…deuterium atom” (see Hatakeyama et al. par. 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included deuterium atoms in place of hydrogen atoms as taught by Hatakeyama et al. in compounds according to Parham et al. One would expect including one or more deuterium atoms in place of hydrogen atom(s) in compounds of Parham et al. to provide polycyclic compounds useful as a dopant material in a light emitting layer of a light emitting device with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 24 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 closest art is Parham et al. (US 2009/0295275 A1) discussed in the above rejections. Parham et al. fails to suggest features of claims 23 and 24, because Parham et al. Formula 1 is specifically defined to include at least one R variable as a group other than hydrogen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the claim scope of independent claims 1 and 12 has been narrowed in the June 11, 2026 amendment, the office maintains the breadth of included compounds is not commensurate in scope with the tested compounds. Additionally, the office maintains comparative compounds previously presented by applicant in the application file differ from the tested “inventive” compounds in multiple features and one can not clearly conclude there are unexpectedly improved features specific to the claimed compounds. Further, Parham is not limited to only teaching preferred embodiments. A reference is not limited to the teaching of only example embodiments. MPEP 2123 states “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”.
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