DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 9, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment received November 9, 2025 is entered. Claims 1 and 9 were amended. Claims 14 and 15 are canceled claims. Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are pending.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0053998 A1) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 15.
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, 9-13, and 16-20 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, and 20 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 claim 20).
Regarding claims 10-13, defined groups discussed above within Kim et al. may comprise biphenyl groups corresponding to CY1 and CY2 as each benzene for positions corresponding to instant A1 to A4. Further regarding claims 11-13, such groups correspond to instant 2(1) and a dibenzofuran may be selected as a substituent group per instant 2(2) as discussed above for aryl and heteroaryl groups. Regarding claims 1, 9, 18, 19, and 20, groups may be selected for Kim et al. formula 1 where corresponding aryl or heteroaryl groups that may or may not be substituted correspond to instant A1 to A4 the same and corresponding to required instant formula 2 groups. 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 instant Formula 2 groups, 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, 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 November 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended Formula 1 has a unique combination of where group A1 to A4 are of Formula 2 and are identical to one another, which results in “a clear and specific symmetrical constraint”. To support the allegation, applicant argues Examples 1-5 of Table 2 to provide representative compounds. In response, the office submits the claims are not limited to these five compounds and accordingly, the examples are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claimed compounds. 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).)
The comparative compounds of Table 2 are only three random compounds that are not symmetrical. The compounds are not commensurate in scope with what is fairly taught by the prior art and are not directly comparable to examples 1-5 in order to clearly demonstrate the symmetry of selected groups provide improved results. The compounds of A to C differ in more ways to Examples 1 to 5 than mere selection of instant A1 to A4 as the same groups.
Compounds used in Examples 1 to 5:
PNG
media_image4.png
180
128
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
152
144
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
124
140
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
160
142
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
168
180
media_image8.png
Greyscale
versus
Compounds used in comparative examples 1-3:
PNG
media_image9.png
172
560
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
The compounds A to C vary in several more ways than just selecting corresponding groups A1 to A4 the same. Further, it is noted that each of A to C have a cyclohexyl group at the instant R1 position and this is not a feature expressly required or preferred by the prior art reference. Compound B has a group the same as in #1, #15, and #37, but the corresponding R1 groups are not the same among the compounds. Compound C has some groups the same as #24, but again the R1 is not the same among the compounds and also the bonding position of the dibenzofuran groups are not the same among the compounds. The experimental evidence of Table 2 is not sufficient to support the allegation of specific selection of groups A1 to A4 upon the core compound results in performance advantages.
Applicant alleges hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The office maintains Kim et al. (US 2021/0053998 A1) renders obvious compounds as claimed. The rational is that groups are specifically defined by Kim et al. for a compound used in a light emitting device. With respect to MPEP 2123, "[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).” Additionally, “"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).”
Conclusion
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