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 April 29, 2026. Claims 1 and 9 were amended. Claim 21 was added. Claims 10-15, 18, and 19 are cancelled claims. Claims 1-9, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are pending.
Previous rejections over now cancelled claims are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The structures 2-1 to 2-4 and 2-47 in amended claims 1 and 9 contain subscripts that are too small and too blurry as currently presented in the claim copy. Clearer structures should be included in the next claim set for the purpose of clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 16, 17, and 20 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. Dependent claims are included in the rejection based upon their respective dependence on a rejected claim.
Independent claims 1 and 9 both recite the A1 to A4 “are each, independently from one another, one of groups of Formulae 2-1 to 2-4 and 2-47” and also recite “wherein A1 to A4 are identical to each other”. The first limitation appears to encompass the A1 to A4 may be selected differently from one another while the second limitation states they are identical. The limitations are not consistent and render the claims unclear. 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 1-6, 9, 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0053998 A1).
Regarding Formula 1 compounds of claims 1 and 9, Kim et al. teaches devices with a light emitting layer comprising Formula 1 compounds (see par. 12-14):
PNG
media_image1.png
170
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Y may be selected as boron (see par. 18) and X1 and X2 may be selected as N(R4) (see par. 19). R1 to R4 are same or different and may be hydrogen, substituted or unsubstituted aryl or substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl among others (see par. 20). The term “aryl” is defined in par. 29 and the term “heteroaryl” is defined in par. 31. The term “substituted” may include aryl or heteroaryl groups (see par. 51). At least compound 1-9 on page 7 and 1-94 on page 21 show ortho bonding may be selected for a substituent group. Substituent groups as aryl or heteroaryl are shown to include at least phenyl (see 1-18, 1-19), dibenzofuran (see 1-23), terphenyl (see 1-34) (see par. 93 for groups depicted in specific compounds). Regarding compounds of claims 1, 9, and 20 within Kim et al. Formula 1 as discussed above, a Formula 1 is the same as at least instant compound 35 when Kim R1, R2, and R3 are each selected as heteroaryl dibenzofuran group and R4 is selected as substituted aryl phenyl where the substituent group is heteroaryl dibenzofuran group:
PNG
media_image2.png
186
164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Instant compound 35 shown in instant claim 20).
Regarding compounds of claims 1, 9, 20, and 37 within Kim et al. Formula 1 as discussed above, a Formula 1 is the same as at least instant compound 37 when Kim R1 and R2 are each selected as ortho bonding biphenyl aryl groups (see aryl group within Kim 1-94 on page 21) and R4 is selected as substituted aryl phenyl where the substituent group is ortho bonding biphenyl aryl group:
PNG
media_image3.png
146
128
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Instant compound 37 shown in instant claims 20 and 21).
Regarding claim 16, substitution groups are discussed for the defined Kim et al. Formula 1 (see par. 14-51). Regarding claim 17, Kim formula 1 groups positioned corresponding to instant R5 may be at least a phenyl group substituted with deuterium (see corresponding group in 1-199 on page 38). While Kim et al. does not appear to exemplify all Formula 1 boron and nitrogen-containing compounds where substituents are selected the same as claimed compounds, 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 form Kim et l. Formula 1 compounds having defined groups as discussed above (e.g., at least compounds of Kim et al. formula 1 the same as instant #35 and #37 compounds), wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device including a Formula 1 compound within the disclosure of Kim et al. as dopant in a light emitting layer of a light emitting device with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claims 2-4, a Kim et al. device structure includes hole transport layer and electron transport layer in addition to the emitting layer including the Formula 1 material as dopant (see par. 286-288). Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teaches forming blue emitting layers (see par. 4-7 and Table 1 CIE coordinates of example device structures on page 121, par. 292). Regarding claim 6, an organic electroluminescent element is disclosed (see par. 1-7, 286-288).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0053998 A1) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Kim et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kim et al. teaches a light emitting device, but does not appear specifically to teach a display comprising a transistor with a source and drain electrode or further including a color filter. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a source region and a drain region as part of a thin film transistor (see par. 61) and color filters for pixels (see par. 75) as part of an OLED display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Jeong et al. and a color filter as taught by Jeong et al. to a device as taught by Kim et al. to form a display device, because Jeong et al. teaches using a color filter and using a thin film transistor with a device is beneficial in forming an operational light emitting display. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Kim in view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant narrowed independent claims 1 and 9, but the same instant compounds #35 and #37 of Formula 1 remain in dependent claim 20. Applicant has not deleted compounds that were already address in the last office action as within instant Formula 1. Further new claim 21 recites at least instant compound #37 in a device and a compound the same as #37 was specifically addressed in the previous obviousness rejection(s). Applicant alleges compounds of claim 21 are commensurate with experimental results. In response, the office notes that exact “inventive” compounds of the instant specification experimental section are in new claim 21, but the “comparative” compounds do not fairly represent the closest prior art. Prior art reference Kim et al. does not require a cycloalkyl group as is present on every one of the comparative compounds. The Table 2 results are not considered to clearly show unexpected results over teachings commensurate with the prior art. In addition to the “comparative” compounds requiring a cycloalkyl group, there are multiple other variations of groups in the “comparative” compounds versus the shown “inventive” compounds. There are not “side-by-side” clear showings that including the specific, same instant A1 to A4 groups provides an unexpected, superior result.
With respect to applicant’s comment on page 22 of the remarks “the Office Action does not identify where Kim teaches or suggests the presently recited nested relationship requiring each of A1 to A4 to be selected from Formulae 2-1 to 2-4 and 2-47, with the recited group in those formulae in turn being selected from Formulae 3-1 to 3-3 and 3-13 to 3-16”. In response, the examiner again notes that the rejection already addresses how the Kim et al. formula 1 meets the requirements of compounds at least the same as instant #35 and #37, which include groups as recited in present instant claims 1 and 9.
Also on page 22 of the remarks, applicant argues Kim’s broad disclosure whereas the recited structures are more specific. The office does not find the argument of a broad disclosure in the prior art persuasive in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of unexpected, superior results for the claimed compounds. Note that MPEP 2123 states “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)” and "[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).” Kim et al. does not teach away from forming compounds the same as claimed.
Applicant’s argument beginning at the third line from the bottom of page 22 concerning definitions for X1 and X2 variables is not understood and is not persuasive. Kim et al. variables X1 and X2 and applicant’s use of the designation X1 and X2 for variables of a group are at different portions of the respective molecules. Kim et al. formula 1 variables X1 and X2 are nitrogen-containing groups corresponding to the nitrogens of the core group of applicant’s instant Formula 1 (see arrows):
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
236
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Further, the office has addressed at least phenyl and dibenzofuran groups as substituent groups in the rejection per instant recited groups with instant X1 and X2 variables as carbon-containing.
On page 23, applicant argues the office action did not identify a teaching in Kim that the four A groups “as now defined” would be selected as A1 to A4 identical to each other. In response, the office notes claims 1 and 9 also recite that A1 to A4 are “independently from one another”. With further respect to A1 to A4 being identical, the office notes that Kim et al. does not require corresponding groups to be different and the office has addressed definitions of Kim et al. groups meeting the requirements of at least specific instant compounds #35 and #37 where A1 to A4 are identical groups. While Kim et al. may not identify example compounds identical to claimed compounds, a reference is not limited to the teachings of preferred or example embodiments.
With respect to the comments on pages 23-24 about new claim 21, while the recited compounds are the “inventive” compounds of instant examples, the comparative examples are not sufficient to establish the five compounds demonstrate unexpected, superior results over the teachings of the prior art. Further, new claim 21 recites at least instant compound #37 in a device and a compound the same as #37 was specifically already addressed in the previous obviousness rejection. The instant “comparative” compounds do not fairly represent the closest prior art. Prior art reference Kim et al. does not require a cycloalkyl group as is present on every one of the comparative compounds. Accordingly, the instant Table 2 results are not considered to clearly show unexpected results over teachings commensurate with the prior art. In addition to the “comparative” compounds requiring a cycloalkyl group, there are multiple other group variations of the “comparative” compounds versus the shown “inventive” compounds. There is not a” side-by-side” clear showing that including the specific instant A1 to A4 groups (according to recited formulas 2-1 to 2-4 and 2-47) provides an unexpected, superior result.
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