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 September 19, 2025. Claims 1 and 12 were amended. Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are pending.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the September 19, 2025 amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2022/0017545 A1) is withdrawn due to the September 19, 2025 amendment.
The rejections of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0017545 A1) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 6.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 comprises chemical structures that are not printed clearly. The structures include instances of blurry, faint, or missing bonding lines and/or heteroatoms. Appropriate correction with respect to clear presentation of structures 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, 3, 4, and 7-11 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. Note that some dependent claims are included in the rejection based upon their dependence upon a rejected claim.
Claims 1 and 3 define a variable R19, but there is no structure with a variable R19 as currently presented in the September 19, 2025 claim set. Accordingly, the intended meaning of R19 is not understood and the claims 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, 7-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0017545 A1).
Han et al. teaches compounds according to Formula 1 where X1 may be selected as SiR’R” (see par. 9-19) per instant “electroluminescent compound”:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and above Formula 1 may be more specifically of below Formula 2 or 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
306
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par. 97).
X1 may be NR, O, or S in Formula 2 (see par. 111). In the formulas, R1 to R4 are defined to include hydrogen, alkyl, aryl or heterocyclic groups among others (see par. 12) and each R1 to R4 may be bonded to an adjacent group to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring (see par. 12, 81-93) per Z and Q1 structure of instant Formula A of claim 1 and Z and T containing ring groups of instant Formula B of claim 2 as well as further ring bonding recited within claims 3-6 and 12. Note that Han et al. teaches heterocyclic groups are defined to include one or more of N, O, P, S, Si and Se as heteroatom (see par. 52). Further note that instant Formulas A and B broadly recite that adjacent substituents may form further ring(s). Regarding claims 7 and 13, the Formula 1 material is used in an organic material layer of a light emitting device (see par. 21). Regarding claims 8 and 14, the device may have a multi-layered structure (see par. 142-163, 168-177), which encompasses recited layers. Regarding claim 9 and 15, Formula 1 material may be used in the light emitting layer (see par. 145-146). Regarding claims 10 and 16, layers may be formed by deposition (see par. 167) or solution processing (see par. 168). Further regarding claim 12 and at least specific instant compound 1, note that Han et al. more specific Formula 2 (par. 97) may have each of R7 and R8 as alkyl (see par. 99) and heteroatom X1 may be selected as oxygen (see par. 11).
While Han et al. does not exemplify all possible compounds with Formula 1 also meeting the definitions of instant formula A of claim 1, formula B of claim 2, or specific compounds recited within claim 12, given the teachings of Han et al., 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 compounds according to the Han et al. formula(s) as described above wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device having a compound of Formula 1 in a functional layer within the disclosure of Han et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2022/0017545 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0295205 A1).
Han et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Han et al. teaches a device as set forth above, but does not specifically teach the device is part of a flat or flexible display as recited in claims 11 and 17. In analogous art, Lee et al. teaches organic light emitting diodes may be used to form a flat panel display (see claim 25 on page 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the devices as taught by Han et al. in a flat panel display, because one would expect the Han et al. device to provide light emission within a flat panel display application. One would expect to achieve an operation display according to Han et al. in view of Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to an obviousness rejection over Han et al., applicant argues on page 27 that Han et al. discloses a very broad chemical formula and numerous numbers of compounds are encompassed by the Formula 1 of Han. In response, the office submits applicant’s Formula A and Formula B are also very broad as each of the recited “R” groups and their substituents may optionally form a substituted or unsubstituted ring. With respect to instant Z and T groups, note that Han recites for any of Formulas 1 to 3 variables R1 to R4 are defined to include hydrogen, alkyl, aryl, or heterocyclic groups among others (see par. 12) and each R1 to R4 may be bonded to an adjacent group to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring (see par. 12, 81-93) per Z and Q1 structure of instant Formula A of claim 1 and Z and T containing ring groups of instant Formula B of claim 2 as well as further ring bonding recited within claims 3-5 and 12. Note that Han et al. teaches heterocyclic groups are defined to include one or more of N, O, P, S, Si and Se as heteroatom (see par. 52).
The office further notes with respect to the argument Han et al. teaches a large number of possible compounds - the fact that a reference "discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious." Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands’ of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives.”). Furthermore, “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969).
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