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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 23, 2026 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated February 23, 2026 is entered. Claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 were amended. Claims 8, 9, 15, and 16 are cancelled claims. Claims 1-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of these claims.
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, 3-5, 7, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Hatakeyama et al. teaches organic electroluminescent element comprising a polycyclic aromatic compound (see title and abstract) according to formula (1) (see par. 13):
PNG
media_image1.png
154
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Per instant claim 1 Formula 1, in the Hatakeyama formula (1), Y1 may be boron (see par. 15), X1 and X2 may be N-R (see par. 16), ring A may be an aryl ring (see par. 14) including benzene (see par. 60), and B and C rings may be heteroaryl rings (see par. 14) including rings such as carbazole, dibenzofuran, or dibenzothiophene (see par. 62). Regarding instant Formula 2, B and C rings may be substituted (see par. 49) where a substituent may be alkyl, aryl (i.e., phenyl), or heteroaryl (see par. 49). Hatakeyama teaches a formula (1) compound may be used as dopant material of an emission layer (see par. 119) and blue light emission is taught using compound according to formula (1) (see par. 553). Further, compounds taught by Hatakeyama et al. are the same as claimed and any properties attributable to same compounds (i.e., emission wavelength) are expected the same. Regarding instant formula H-1 of claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches compounds such as “HT” for a hole transport layer (see par. 548-552).
Regarding claim 3, Hatakeyama teaches emission layer comprising formula (1) compound may be used as dopant material (see par. 119).
Regarding claim 4, a device may include both a hole injecting layer and a hole transporting layer (see Table 1 and par. 548-552).
Regarding claim 5, a device may include two hole transporting layers, which would perform the function of hole transportation in the operation of the device. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 7, X1 and X2 may be selected the same N-R (see par. 16).
Regarding claims 10-12, B and C rings may be substituted (see par. 49) where a substituent may be alkyl, aryl, or heteroaryl (see par. 49). Further regarding claims 10 and 11, ring A may be substituted (see par. 49). Further regarding claim 12, R of N-R may be aryl (see par. 56). Regarding compounds of claim 13, corresponding groups per instant R1, Ra3, R2 and R3 have been previous discussed above and include groups the same as groups contained within compounds of instant claim 13. For instance per at least instant #16, A may be substituted with heteroaryl carbazole, B and C rings may be heteroaryl dibenzofuran substituted by aryl phenyl groups and N-R may contain R as heteroaryl dibenzofuran (see par. 48-72).
Per instant Formula 1 of claim 14, Hatakeyama et al. teaches organic electroluminescent element comprising a polycyclic aromatic compound (see title and abstract) according to formula (1) (see par. 13):
PNG
media_image1.png
154
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the Hatakeyama formula (1), Y1 may be boron (see par. 15), X1 and X2 may be N-R (see par. 16), ring A may be an aryl ring (see par. 14) including benzene (see par. 60), and B and C rings may be heteroaryl rings (see par. 14) including rings such as carbazole, dibenzofuran, or dibenzothiophene (see par. 62). Regarding instant Formula 2, B and C rings may be substituted (see par. 49) where a substituent may be alkyl, aryl, or heteroaryl (see par. 49). Hatakeyama teaches emission layer comprising formula (1) compound may be used as dopant material (see par. 119) and blue light emission is taught using compound according to formula (1) (see par. 553). Further, compounds taught by Hatakeyama et al. are the same as claimed and any properties attributable to same compounds (i.e., emission wavelength) are expected the same.
Regarding claims 17-19, B and C rings may be substituted (see par. 49) where a substituent may be alkyl, aryl, or heteroaryl (see par. 49). Further regarding claim 18, ring A may be substituted (see par. 49). Further regarding claim 19, R of N-R may be aryl (see par. 56). Regarding compounds of claim 20, corresponding groups per instant R1, Ra3, R2 and R3 have been previous discussed above and include groups the same as groups contained within compounds of instant claim 20. For instance per at least instant #16, A may be substituted with heteroaryl carbazole, B and C rings may be heteroaryl dibenzofuran substituted by aryl phenyl groups and N-R may contain R as heteroaryl dibenzofuran (see par. 48-72).
While Hatakeyama et al. does not appear to exemplify a Formula 1 compound the same as claimed Formula 1 compounds, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form compounds according to Hatakeyama et al. Formula 1 for use in a device structure as discussed above wherein the resultant compound and device would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds within the disclosure of Hatakeyama et al. for an operational light emitting device with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1) in view of Geum et al. (US 2023/0061019 A1).
Hatakeyama et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Hatakeyama et al. does not appear specifically to teach delayed fluorescent emission from an emitting region/layer(s). In analogous art, Geum et al. teaches delayed fluorescent compounds may be used as dopant material in a light emitting layer comprising multiple materials in a light emitting device (see par. 242, 259-261). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a delayed fluorescent material as taught by Geum et al. in an emission layer within a device according to Hatakeyama et al., because one would expect the Geum et al. dopant material to be similarly beneficial as emitting material in a device display according to Hatakeyama et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Hatakeyama et al. in view of Geum et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1) in view of in view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Hatakeyama et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Hatakeyama et al. does not appear to teach a capping layer on an outer surface of an electrode of the device which has a refractive index of 1.6 or higher. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a capping layer on an OLED (see abstract) having a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to about 2.6 (see claim 2 on page 10). 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 capping layer according to Jeong et al. as part of a sealing layer for protecting a device according to Hatakeyama et al., because one would expect the Jeong et al. capping layer to be similarly beneficial for a device display according to Hatakeyama et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Hatakeyama et al. in view of Jeong with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While applicant amended claims 1 and 14 limiting the polycyclic compound to Formula 2, the office submits Formula 2 was previously rejected and the amendment is not considered persuasive to overcome the obviousness rejection. At the bottom of page 22 of the 02/23/2026 remarks, applicant argues the presently claimed embodiments exhibit unexpected and desirable results; however, applicant does not argue any specific experimental embodiments or evidence relied upon to support the conclusion. Further, applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. With respect to relying upon a showing of unexpected results, MPEP 716.02(b) sets forth applicant has the burden of explaining the data in they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. The burden of presenting and explaining unexpectedly superior experimental evidence commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter and closest prior art has not been met.
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