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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2017/0271611) (Li) in view of Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claims 1, 3-4, 6-12 and 14, Li teaches a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer, an electron transport layer and a second electrode wherein the emissive layer incudes a phosphorescent emitter, a fluorescent emitter, and a host (Li Abstract). Li teaches that the phosphorescent material can be a material PtNON that is within the scope of the instantly claimed compounds of formula D-2 and that a host material can be 2,6mCPy which is within the scope of both the instantly claimed formula H-2 and formula H-1.
Li does not expressly teach that the fluorescent dopant is the material as instantly claimed but broadly teaches that a large variety of known fluorescent emitters can be used (Li [181]).
With respect to the difference, Song teaches, in analogous art, a boron-based blue fluorescent dopant of formula 2 as shown below with excellent color characteristic, narrow full width at half maximum, and efficiency, (Song [0005] [0026]) that is used with additional dopants.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, wherein in the formula 2, Y is B, X1 and X2 are each NR18, each R18 is biphenyl, R10 and R14 are each phenyl, R7 is dibenzofuran, and each other R is hydrogen.
Song discloses the emitter of chemical formula 2 that encompasses the presently claimed emitter, including wherein in the formula 2, Y is B, X1 and X2 are each NR18, each R18 is biphenyl, R10 and R14 are each phenyl, R7 is dibenzofuran, and each other R is hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Song are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of chemical formula 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of chemical formula 2 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Song and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In light of the motivation of using the compound of chemical formula 2 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound of chemical formula 2 as described by Song in order to provide a blue fluorescent emitter with excellent color characteristic, narrow full width at half maximum, and efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on the claimed device structure wherein the compound of Song reads on formula 1 wherein z is phenyl, each R1 is hydrogen, one of R2 is phenyl and each other of R2 is hydrogen, each of R3 is hydrogen, each of R4 is hydrogen, each of R5 is hydrogen, Y is O, X1 and X2 are each NR6, and each of R5 is biphenyl, 2,6mCPy reads on formula H-1 wherein L1 is pyridine, and AR1 is carbazole, 2,6mCPy reads on H-2 wherein Z1 is N, R10 and R12 are each carbazole and R11 is hydrogen, PtNON reads on formula D-2 wherein Q1 and Q4 are each N, Q2 and Q3 are each C, L22 is an oxygen linkage, L21 and L23 are each a direct linkage, C3 and C2 are each carbazole, and C1 and C4 are each pyridine.
For Claim 3: Reads on the first, second and third compound.
For Claim 4: Reads on the first, second, third and fourth compound.
For Claim 6: Reads on formula 2-1.
For Claim 7: Reads on formula 3-2.
For Claim 8: Reads on 3-2-1.
For Claim 9: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 10: Reads on formula 4.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula 5-3.
For Claim 12: Reads on formula 6-1.
For Claim 14: Reads on compound 11.
In reference to claim 2, Li in view of Song teaches the device as described above. While Li in view of Song does not state that the device is configured to emit delayed fluorescent light, this limitation is not particularly limiting. Light is the same regardless of how it is emitted, so “emit delayed fluorescence” is not particularly limiting. Further, the light is taught to be emitted through a fluorescence mechanism. In the device of Li, some of the singlet emission is derived by transfer of triplet energy from a host to the singlet state of the fluorescent emitter by way of the phosphorescent material. As the triplet state of the phosphorescent emitter is more long lived, the emission after transfer to the singlet state would be expected to exist at some delay greater than direct fluorescence. Further, the claim does not limit how long the delay must be in order to qualify as delayed. Finally, the properties of the emission layer are resultant of the structure. As the claimed device and the device of Li in view of Song are identical, it is expected that the device has the instantly claimed property, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
In reference to claim 5, Li in view of Song teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Li teaches blue emission in examples therein, which overlaps with the claimed emission wavelength range. Further, Song teaches that the emission from the blue materials described therein is in a wavelength range of 440 nm to 480 nm (Song [0115]) and example have CIE coordinates that appear to all produce light in the claimed wavelength range (Song Table 2).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 13, Li in view of Song teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Li does not specifically teach a capping layer with the claimed refractive index. However, Song teaches by way of examples a capping layer comprising N4,N4′-diphenyl-N4,N4′-bis(4-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)phenyl-[1,1′-biphenyl]-4,4′-diamine (Song [0207]) is used in such devices. It would have been obvious to have used a known device configuration as taught by Song in the device of Li in view of Song.
While Song does not expressly teach the refractive index of this compound it appears to be structurally identical to the compound P4 disclosed in the instant specification [00261] as materials for the capping layer. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claims 15-20, Song teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and an emission layer among other layers including hole transport layers and electron blocking layers (Song [0061]) wherein an electron blocking layer includes N-phenyl-N-(4-(spiro[benzo[de]anthracene-7,9-fluorene]-2-yl)phenyl)dibenzo[b,d]furan-4-amine (Song [0188]), and wherein the emission layer includes a boron-based blue fluorescent dopant of formula 2 as shown below with excellent color characteristic, narrow full width at half maximum, and efficiency, (Song [0005] [0026]) that is used with additional dopants.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, wherein in the formula 2, Y is B, X1 and X2 are each NR18, each R18 is biphenyl, R10 and R14 are each phenyl, R7 is dibenzofuran, and each other R is hydrogen.
Song discloses the emitter of chemical formula 2 that encompasses the presently claimed emitter, including wherein in the formula 2, Y is B, X1 and X2 are each NR18, each R18 is biphenyl, R10 and R14 are each phenyl, R7 is dibenzofuran, and each other R is hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Song are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of chemical formula 2.
For Claim 15: Reads on the claimed device structure wherein the compound of Song reads on formula 1 wherein Z is phenyl, each R1 is hydrogen, one of R2 is phenyl and each other of R2 is hydrogen, each of R3 is hydrogen, each of R4 is hydrogen, each of R5 is hydrogen, Y is O, X1 and X2 are each NR6, and each of R5 is biphenyl, the electron blocking layer reads on the hole transport layer comprising a compound of formula H-A, wherein Ara is phenyl, Ya is O and Yb Is CReRf wherein Re and Rf are fused to form a spiro ring system.
For Claim 16: Reads on formula 2-1.
For Claim 17: Reads on formula 3-2.
For Claim 18: Reads on formula 4.
For Claim 19: Reads on formula 6-1.
For Claim 20: Reads on compound 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant first again argues that the claimed materials give rise to unexpected results from making certain selections from among those materials and devices of the prior art in terms of device properties. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in driving voltage, device efficiency and lifetime, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables. Applicant’s remarks do not address this issue.
Second, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, each of the emitter materials tested 31, 42, 54, 133, 145 and 152 include both X1 and X2 as NR6 wherein R6 is selected from very specifically bis ortho substituted phenyl groups whereas R6 can be selected from among an innumerable list of possible options. Similarly, groups R1 to R5 and Z can be exceptionally broadly defined groups. That is, these devices are nowhere near commensurate in scope with the essentially infinite number of material combinations claimed. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds and resultant devices is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming many orders of magnitude more compounds and even more devices. As Applicant is attesting that the claimed device configurations have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example devices taught by Song, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
While Applicant has someone narrowed the scope of the claims, the genus of formula 1 is still immense with only a few examples being demonstrated which are not commensurate in scope.
Next, Applicant argues the outstanding rejection over Song relies upon an selecting particular substituents among Song’s broad alternative lists and assembling them into a specific embodiment. This argument is not convincing. Arriving at any species of the claimed genus of formula 1 of the instant claim 1 also requires selecting particular substituents from among broad, alternative lists and assembling them into a specific combination. Applicant has claimed a genus that is merely a slightly smaller subsection of the materials disclosed by Song. In the absence of unexpected results that are of statistical and practical significance and commensurate in scope with the claims, these selections would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights