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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 25-26, 28-40, 44-45, and 47 are amended, claims 27, 41-43, 46, and 48 are cancelled, and claims 49-54 are new due to Applicant's amendment dated 03/12/2026. Claims 25-26, 28-40, 44-45, 47, 49-54 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 27, 41-43, 46, and 48 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 27, 41-43, 46, and 48 are cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/12/2026.
The rejection of claims 25-26 and 28-34 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US 2020/0274075 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/12/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 35-36, 40, and 44-45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/15/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 36-39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kottas (US 2021/0279019 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/12/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Li (US 2017/0271611 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/12/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s arguments on pages 30-34 of the reply dated 03/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 25-26, 28-40, 44-45, 47 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that Park fails to satisfy at least one of the provisos (a) to (e).
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the new grounds of rejection below, the cited references teach the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 38-39 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 38-39 includes blurry formulae.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-26, 28-40, 44-45, 47, and 50-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 25 and 49 recite the newly added amendment which requires at least one of (a) to (e) to be true, wherein (c) recites at least one RA or R2 comprises at least two aryl or heteroaryl groups that are not fused together, wherein at least one is a polycyclic group. Claim 52 similarly requires this limitation. The instant specification recites RA and R2 may be an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5 to 60 aromatic ring atoms, which may be substituted by one or more radicals R (see instant pg. 7, lines 10-29). Additionally, the instant specification recites compounds 47-58 which include very specific examples of wherein RA comprises at least two aryl groups that are not fused together, wherein at least one is a polycyclic group (see instant pgs. 52-53). As an example, the instant specification provides support for wherein RA is
PNG
media_image1.png
272
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see compound 47 on pg. 52). However, outside of compounds 47-58, the instant specification does not provide support for the full scope of wherein RA comprises at least two aryl groups that are not fused together, wherein at least one is a polycyclic group. Additionally, the instant specification does not show examples of compounds wherein R2 comprises at least two aryl or heteroaryl groups that are not fused together, wherein at least one is a polycyclic group. Therefore, while there is support for wherein 1) RA and R2 are selected from an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5 to 60 aromatic ring atoms, which are substituted by one or more radicals R; and 2) wherein RA is selected from the specific groups shown in compounds 47-58, there is not sufficient support for wherein at least one RA or R2 comprises at least two aryl or heteroaryl groups that are not fused together, wherein at least one is a polycyclic group. For this reason, claims 25, 49, and 52 are considered to have new matter.
Claims 25 and 49 recite the newly added amendment which requires at least one of (a) to (e) to be true, wherein (d) recites each of Y1 and Y2 is independently -C(RY)2- or -Si(RY)2- and at least one pair of RY forms a 6-membered ring or each pair of RY forms a ring. Claim 53 similarly requires this limitation. The instant specification recites two adjacent substituents RY may form a mono- or polycyclic, aliphatic ring system or aromatic ring system (instant pg. 14, lines 20-22). Additionally, adjacent substituents RY may form a ring of formula (RY-1) or (RY-2) (instant pgs. 14-15). The instant specification also recites compounds 1 and 31, which provide support for 1) wherein each of Y1 and Y2 is -C(RY)2- and adjacent RY form an unsubstituted fluorene ring; and 2) wherein one of Y1 and Y2 is -C(RY)2- and adjacent RY form the ring
PNG
media_image2.png
83
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see instant pgs. 49 and 51). Accordingly, while there is support for wherein i) two adjacent substituents RY may form a mono- or polycyclic, aliphatic ring system or aromatic ring system; ii) adjacent substituents RY may form a ring of formula (RY-1) or (RY-2); iii) each of Y1 and Y2 is -C(RY)2- and adjacent RY form an unsubstituted fluorene ring; and iv) one of Y1 and Y2 is -C(RY)2- and adjacent RY form the ring
PNG
media_image2.png
83
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, there is not sufficient support for the full scope of each of Y1 and Y2 is independently -C(RY)2- or -Si(RY)2- and at least one pair of RY forms a 6-membered ring or each pair of RY forms a ring. For this reason, claims 25, 49, and 53 are considered to have new matter.
The newly added claim 49 requires an organic electroluminescent device comprising an emitting layer, wherein the emitting layer comprises a compound or a polymer, oligomer or dendrimer containing the compound, wherein the compound comprises formula (1). The previous claim 41 recited a polymer, oligomer or dendrimer containing one or more compounds of formula (1). Additionally, the instant specification recites an organic electroluminescent device comprising a compound of the formula (1) (pg. 58, lines 8-10). However, the instant specification does not recite an organic electroluminescent device comprising a polymer, oligomer or dendrimer containing one or more compounds of formula (1). Accordingly, there is not sufficient support for the limitation of an organic electroluminescent device comprising a polymer, oligomer or dendrimer containing one or more compounds of formula (1). For this reason, claim 49 is considered to have new matter.
Claims 26, 28-40, 44-45, 47, and 50-54 are further rejected for being dependent upon claim 25.
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.
Claim 39 is 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.
Claim 39 fails to include a definition for Y3 and thus it is unclear how to interpret Y3. The instant specification recites Y3 stands for a single bond of for a divalent bridge selected from -C(RY)2-, -C(RY)2-C(RY)2-, -Si(RY)2-, -O-, -S-, -S(=O)2 and -C(=O)- (see instant pg. 14, lines 34-36). For purposes of examination, Y3 will be interpreted as defined in instant pg. 14.
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.
Claims 25-26, 28-36, 40, 44-45, 49, and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0274075 A1).
Regarding claims 25-26, 28-34, and 53, Park teaches an organic light-emitting device having low driving voltage, high efficiency, long lifespan, and high maximum quantum efficiency by including therein a heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract; ¶ [0138], [0143], and [0145]). Examples of heterocyclic compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound 112 (pg. 29).
112:
PNG
media_image3.png
34
48
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image4.png
151
253
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 112 fails to satisfy one of the claimed provisos (a) to (e). However, Park teaches in Formula 1, X2 may be C(R2)(R3) wherein R2 and R3 may be linked to form a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 heterocyclic group (¶ [0011] and [0016]). Park teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 wherein X2 is C(R2)(R3) and R2 and R3 are linked to form an S-containing 6-membered ring (see compound 147 on pg. 34).
147:
PNG
media_image5.png
157
226
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute
PNG
media_image3.png
34
48
media_image3.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image6.png
107
39
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in the location of X2 as shown in compound 147, because Park teaches the X2 may suitably be selected as
PNG
media_image6.png
107
39
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 112 of Park is hereinafter referred to as compound 112(d).
Compound 112(d) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed formula (1).
112(d):
PNG
media_image7.png
344
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
formula (1):
PNG
media_image8.png
252
268
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Compound 112(d) reads on the claimed formula (1) wherein:
On each occurrence, X1 is CR1, X2 is CR2, and XA is CRA;
Y1 is -C(RY)2- and Y2 is -Si(RY)2-;
RB is an unsubstituted aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (claims 28-29);
Each RY of Y1 is an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms wherein the pair of RY form a 6-membered ring, and each RY of Y2 is an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms;
R1, R2, and RA on each occurrence is H (claims 31-33);
Particularly, RA reads on the general formula (RS-d) wherein each of R40 to R44 is H (claim 33); and
R, R’, and Ar are not required to be present.
Accordingly, proviso (d) and the limitations of claim 53 are satisfied.
Additionally, compound 112(d) reads on the claimed formulas (2) and (4), and RB reads on the formula (RS-d) wherein R40 to R44 are each H (claims 26, 30, and 34).
Regarding claim 35, Park teaches compound 112(d), as described above with respect to claim 25.
I:
PNG
media_image9.png
155
257
media_image9.png
Greyscale
112(d):
PNG
media_image7.png
344
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 112(d) fails to include substituents in the location of the claimed RA. However, Park does teach in Formula I, R10, R20, and R30 may each be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group, wherein examples thereof include phenyl as shown in compounds 26 and 38 (¶ [0016]; structure on pgs. 17 and 19).
26:
PNG
media_image10.png
203
178
media_image10.png
Greyscale
38:
PNG
media_image11.png
200
203
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute hydrogen with phenyl in the locations of the claimed RA, because Park teaches R10, R20, and R30 may suitably be selected as phenyl, as exemplified in Park’s compounds 26 and 38. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the device of Park and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute three hydrogens with phenyl in the locations of the claimed RA, because these would have been choosing specific positions of R10, R20, and R30 in which to substitute phenyl, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the device of Park and possessing the benefits taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Park’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Park in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting modified compound 112(d) reads on the claimed formula (1) wherein RB and RA are each represented by formula (RS-d) wherein R40 to R44 are each H.
Regarding claims 36 and 40, Park teaches compound 112(d), as described above with respect to claim 25.
I:
PNG
media_image9.png
155
257
media_image9.png
Greyscale
112(d):
PNG
media_image7.png
344
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 112(d) fails to include alkyl substituents on the phenyl group bonded to boron. However, Park does teach in Formula I Y2 may be B(R1) wherein R1 may be a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group, wherein examples thereof include phenyl (as shown in compound 112) or mesityl (as shown in compound 3) (¶ [0010]-[0015]; structure on pg. 14).
3:
PNG
media_image12.png
131
201
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute phenyl with mesityl in the location of R1, because Park teaches R1 may suitably be selected as mesityl, as exemplified in Park’s compound 3. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the device of Park and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select mesityl for R1, because this would have been choosing a suitable group for R1 specifically exemplified by Park, and this would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the device of Park and possessing the benefits taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Park’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Park in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting modified compound 112(d) reads on the claimed formula (5) wherein R40, R42, and R44 are each a straight-chain alkyl group having 1 carbon atom.
Regarding claims 44-45 and 49, Park teaches compound 112(d), as described above with respect to claim 25.
Park fails to specifically teach a device including compound 112(d). However, Park does teach an organic light-emitting device having low driving voltage, high efficiency, long lifespan, and high maximum quantum efficiency by including an emission layer between a pair of electrodes, wherein the emission layer includes a host and a heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 as a TADF emitter (abstract; ¶ [0138], [0143], [0145], [0147], and [0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 112(d) as a TADF emitter in an organic light-emitting device having the structure described above, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Park according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light-emitting device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, long lifespan, and high maximum quantum efficiency, as taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 52, Park teaches compound 112(d), as described above with respect to claim 25.
I:
PNG
media_image9.png
155
257
media_image9.png
Greyscale
112(d):
PNG
media_image7.png
344
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 112(d) fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein at least one RA or R2 comprises at least two aryl or heteroaryl groups that are not fused together, wherein at least one is a polycyclic group. However, Park does teach in Formula I R30 may be a substituted C12 heteroaryl group (¶ [0015]). Park additionally teaches examples of compounds wherein R30 is a carbazole group substituted with phenyl, as shown in compound 25 (structure on pg. 17).
25:
PNG
media_image13.png
202
230
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute hydrogen with a carbazole group substituted with phenyl, as shown in compound 25, because Park teaches R30 may suitably be selected as a carbazole group substituted with phenyl. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 112(d) reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein one RA comprises an aryl and a heteroaryl group that are not fused together, wherein the heteroaryl group is a polycyclic group. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 52 are satisfied.
Regarding claim 54, Park teaches compound 112(d), as described above with respect to claim 25.
I:
PNG
media_image9.png
155
257
media_image9.png
Greyscale
112(d):
PNG
media_image7.png
344
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 112(d) fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein two adjacent radicals each selected from R1, R2, or RA form a mono- or polycyclic, aliphatic ring system or aromatic ring system. However, Park does teach in Formula I A1 may be an unsubstituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group, wherein examples thereof include naphthalene as exemplified in compound 34 (¶ [0013]; structure on pg. 18).
34:
PNG
media_image14.png
165
188
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute phenyl with naphthyl, as shown in compound 34, because Park teaches A1 may suitably be selected as naphthyl. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 112(d) reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein two adjacent radicals R2 and RA form an aromatic ring system.. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 54 are satisfied.
Claims 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0274075 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Kottas (US 2011/0279019 A1).
Regarding claims 36-39, Park teaches compound 112(d), as described above with respect to claim 25.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image9.png
155
257
media_image9.png
Greyscale
112(d):
PNG
media_image7.png
344
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 112(d) fails to include a branched aryl substituent on the boron atom. However, Park does teach in Formula I Y2 may be B(R1) wherein R1 may be a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl group and examples of the substituent include a C6-C60 aryl group (¶ [0007], [0010], and [0015]-[0019]).
Kottas teaches compounds comprising a dibenzo-1,4-azaborine core having a phenyl substituent on the boron atom and aryl or heteroaryl substituents at positions 2 and 6 of the phenyl substituent, wherein the compounds are represented by Formula I (abstract; ¶ [0015]). Kottas teaches substituents (particularly, phenyl substituents) at the 2 and 6 positions of the phenyl attached to the boron atom provide steric protection to the boron atom and thereby prevent decomposition (¶ [0053]). Additionally, these phenyl substituents provide higher glass transition temperatures and suitable evaporation temperature compared to methyl substituents, and thus provide devices with improved stability (¶ [0053]). Kottas teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula I including Compound 2 (pg. 15).
Formula I:
PNG
media_image15.png
110
181
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Compound 2:
PNG
media_image16.png
285
178
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as compound 112(d) is a dibenzo-1,4-azaborine derivative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute three phenyl substituents on the phenyl group attached to the boron atom, as shown in Kottas’ Compound 2, to arrive at a compound having phenyl substituents at the 2 and 6 positions of the phenyl attached to the boron atom, based on the teaching of Kottas. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide steric protection to the boron atom and thereby prevent decomposition, and to provide a higher glass transition temperature, and thus provide a device with improved stability, as taught by Kottas.
The resulting modified compound 112(d) reads on the claimed formula (5) wherein R40, R42, and R44 are each an aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (claims 36-37), and the claimed formulas (5-3) and (5-3-b) wherein the phenyl groups indicated with -R32 are unsubstituted (claims 38-39).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0274075 A1) as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Li (US 2017/0271611 A1).
Regarding claim 47, Park teaches the organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer further comprises a host and compound 112(d) as a fluorescent emitter, as described above with respect to claim 44.
Park fails to teach the emission layer further comprises a sensitizer.
Li teaches a light emitting device including an emissive layer, wherein the emissive layer includes a phosphorescent emitter (sensitizer), a fluorescent emitter, and a host (abstract; ¶ [0068]). The fluorescent emitter may include derivatives of dibenzoazaborine, as shown by the structure below (¶ [0181]; pg. 18). Such a device may obtain high efficiency and operational stability while emitting nearly exclusively from the fluorescent emitter (¶ [0011] and [0196]).
dibenzoazaborine:
PNG
media_image17.png
133
122
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a phosphorescent sensitizer in Park’s emission layer, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high efficiency and operational stability while emitting nearly exclusively from compound 112(d), as taught by Li.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0274075 A1) in view of Sim (US 2020/0006671 A1).
Regarding claim 50, Park teaches compound 112(d), as described above with respect to claim 25.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image9.png
155
257
media_image9.png
Greyscale
112(d):
PNG
media_image7.png
344
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 112(d) fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein Y1 is a single bond.
Sim teaches a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1 for use in an organic light-emitting device (abstract). By the condensed cyclic compound including a carbazole ring in a core, an organic light-emitting device including the condensed cyclic compound may obtain improved efficiency and high color purity (¶ [0144]-[0145]).
1:
PNG
media_image18.png
142
332
media_image18.png
Greyscale
1B:
PNG
media_image19.png
162
225
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute SiPh2 with a single bond to arrive at a compound including a carbazole ring in the core, based on the teaching of Sim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an organic light-emitting device having improved efficiency and high color purity, as taught by Sim.
The modified compound 112(d) reads on the Formula 1 of Park wherein: Y1 is N; Y2 is B(R1); X1 is not required to be present and X2 is C(R2)(R3); m1 is 0 and m2 is 1; A1 to A3 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; a10 and a20 are each 1 and a30 is 3; R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group and R2 and R3 are each a C6 aryl group that combine to form a ring; and R10 and R20 are linked to form an unsubstituted C5 heterocyclic group (see Park, ¶ [0007]-[0016]). Accordingly, the modified compound 112(d) is expected to obtain the benefits of Park. Additionally, as modified compound 112(d) includes a carbazole ring in the core, the modified compound 112(d) is expected to obtain the benefits of Sim.
The modified compound 112(d) of Park in view of Sim reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein Y1 is a single bond and thus satisfies the limitations of claim 50.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0274075 A1) in view of Parham (US 2009/0295275 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Park teaches compound 112(d), as described above with respect to claim 25.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image9.png
155
257
media_image9.png
Greyscale
112(d):
PNG
media_image7.png
344
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 112(d) fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein at least one of Y1 and Y2 is -C(=O)-.
Parham teaches compounds represented by formula (1) for use as dopants in the emitting layer of OLEDs wherein Y may be selected as Si(R1)2 or C=O, among others (abstract; ¶ [0015]-[0018]). Parham teaches examples of compounds represented by formula (1) wherein Y is C=O, as exemplified in structure (5) (pg. 5).
(1):
PNG
media_image20.png
205
205
media_image20.png
Greyscale
(5):
PNG
media_image21.png
263
289
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Parham teaches C=O is a suitable substitute for Si(R1)2 in a condensed N-containing cyclic compound used as a dopant in an OLED.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute SiPh2 with C=O in the location of Park’s X1, as shown in Parham’s structure (5), because Park teaches C=O is a suitable substitute for Si(R1)2 in a condensed N-containing cyclic compound used as a dopant in an OLED. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the heterocyclic compound and possess the benefits taught by Park. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 112(d) reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein Y2 is -C(=O)- and thus the limitations of claim 51 are satisfied.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights