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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 18, 2026 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated April 17, 2026 has now been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are cancelled claims. Claims 16, 21, 22, 24, and 28 were amended. Claims 16 and 21-31 are pending.
The previous rejection of claim 21 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of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the amendment of claim 21.
The rejection of claims 16 and 21-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0108169 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment of independent claim 16.
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.
Claim 25 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 25 recites the molecule of claim 16 is “configured to be a luminescent emitter”. The term “configure to be” is considered indefinite, because it is unclear how the molecule is processed or modified to be an emitter. ( If the molecule as defined in claim 16 is simply an emitter in a device of claim 25, the phrase could be replaced with “as a luminescent emitter”.) 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 16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/017931 A1; patent document cited on 7/28/2022 IDS and a translation copy is attached to this office action).
Kim et al. discloses formula 1 compounds for a light emitting device (see document par. 11, page 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
192
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
More specifically, formula 6 of formula 1 is taught (see page 13, par. 124):
PNG
media_image2.png
220
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
An example Formula 1/Formula 6 includes at least the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
86
108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 18).
The above compound from page 18 of the patent document anticipates claim 16 instant Formula Ia-2 where all corresponding instant RI to RXI are hydrogen. The compound also anticipates a compound of instant claims 21-23.
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 16 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/017931 A1; patent document cited on 7/28/2022 IDS and a translation copy is attached to this office action).
Kim et al. discloses formula 1 compounds for a light emitting device (see document par. 11, page 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
192
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
More specifically, formula 6 of formula 1 is taught (see page 13, par. 124):
PNG
media_image2.png
220
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]Suitable Formula 6 Cy13 and Cy14 rings that may be selected for a compound are shown within the below example compound, which correspond to rings as within instant formula Ia-2:
PNG
media_image3.png
86
108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 18).
Kim et al. R1, R6, R7, R8, and R9 groups of formulas 1 and/or 6 are defined to encompass groups of substituted compounds of claims 16 and 21-23 (in addition to the above exact example compound of page 18, which is discussed in the above anticipation rejection) (see pages 1-3 of translation copy). With respect to claim 24 and instant substituent RXI as carbazole, Kim et al. R1 is defined to include heterocyclic group (see page 1 of translation copy) and note that carbazole group is expressly listed as a heterocyclic group (see page 18 of translation copy).
With respect to a device including the Formula 1 compounds, the above shown page 18 compound was not selected to form an example organic light emitting device structure in the reference; however, Formula 1 compounds are taught for use in device structures as dopant in a light emitting layer together with a host material (see page 76 of translation copy example 1-1 device description and see also page 50 of translation copy) per instant claims 25-29. Regarding claim 30 and 31, the layer of the device including the compound is formed by vacuum deposition (see page 76 of translation copy example 1-1 device description).
Given the teachings of the Kim et al. 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 have formed Formula 1 compound(s) and layers of a light emitting device including an emitting layer including the compound(s) in mixture as discussed above wherein the resultant compounds, composition, device structure, and method would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Kim et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang, Jianhua, and Yuqing Li. "BN embedded polycyclic π-conjugated systems: Synthesis, optoelectronic properties, and photovoltaic applications." Frontiers in chemistry 6 (2018): 341.
The reference discusses polycyclic compounds that include boron and nitrogen heteroatoms and is considered relevant to the field of the endeavor.
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