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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 24, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on June 24, 2026.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 9, 11, 15, and 17 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleetham as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 9 – 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zink as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, file June 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fleetham as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, file June 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zink as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zink as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham and further in view of Jeong as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 19/018833 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘833 application, as evidenced by compound 1 in claim 20 in the ‘833 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 19/185162 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘162 application, as evidenced by compound 7 in claim 17 in the ‘162 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 21 of copending Application No. 19/247503 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘503 application, as evidenced by compound 28 in claim 10 in the ‘503 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 19/263871 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘871 application, as evidenced by compound 15 in claim 20 in the ‘871 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 19/284876 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘876 application, as evidenced by compound 1 in claim 9 in the ‘876 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 19/312398 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘398 application, as evidenced by compound 52 in claim 12 in the ‘398 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 19/272998 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘998 application, as evidenced by compound 60 in claim 20 in the ‘998 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 14 and 6 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/149506 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘506 application, as evidenced by compound 49 in claim 20 in the ‘506 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 – 8, and 10 – 20 of copending Application No. 17/889217 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 2 of the ‘217 application, as evidenced by compound 7 in claim 8 in the ‘217 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 9, 12 – 17, 19 and 20 of copending Application No. 17/874110 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘110 application, as evidenced by compound 16 in claim 14 in the ‘110 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 19, 24 and 25 of copending Application No. 18/074777 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘777 application, as evidenced by compound 10 in claim 15 in the ‘777 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 20 of copending Application No. 18/057124 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘124 application, as evidenced by compound 77 in claim 9 in the ‘124 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 8 – 13, 19 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/167034 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Formula 1 in the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘034 application, as evidenced by compound 1 in claim 14 in the ‘034 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,978. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula I in claim 1 of the ‘978 patent overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in the instant application wherein ring A21 is represented by a carbazole group.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected 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.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9. Claim 9 recites that when ring A1 or ring A2 is a heterocyclic group, then the heterocyclic group is not a benzimidazole group. However, claim 10 recites options for rings A1 and A2 that include benzimidazole groups as an option. Therefore, claim 10 appears to fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 – 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolohan (US20220281898A1).
As per claims 9 – 12, and 15, Wolohan teaches:
A condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
320
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Wolohan teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image2.png
142
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0006]). A particular compound within the scope of Formula I taught by Wolohan is
PNG
media_image3.png
110
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0077]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein rings A1 to A3 are each a C6 carbocyclic group, namely benzene groups as required by claim 10, Ring A1 is represented by Formula 4-1 in claim 11
PNG
media_image4.png
118
122
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, ring A2 is represented by Formula 6-1 in claim 12
PNG
media_image5.png
116
110
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, ring A3 is represented by Formula 11-1 in claim 15
PNG
media_image6.png
206
212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and A21 is a C18 heterocyclic group; X1 and X2 are O; X3 is B; X21 is carbon; all the R groups are hydrogen; b1 and b2 are an integer of 0 so that T1 and T2 do not exist; T3 is a group represented by Formula 2; the compound meets condition 4 in claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wolohan (US20220281898A1) as applied to claims 9 – 12 and 15 above.
As per claim 20, Wolohan does not measure the bond dissociation energy of a single bond connecting ring A3 in Formula 1 with X21 in Formula 2. However, in Table 4 of the specification as filed, Applicant demonstrates that bonds with carbon-carbon bonds, such as those taught in Wolohan, generally have a bond dissociation energy of greater than 3.0 eV as claimed. Therefore, the property of bond dissociation energy of a single bond is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 – 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan (US20220281898A1) as applied to claims 9 – 12, 15 and 20 above.
As per claims 1 – 4, 6, and 7, the teachings of Wolohan directed to the particular compound above are incorporated herein.
As per claims 1 and 2, Wolohan teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer includes an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, and the interlayer further comprises: a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer or a combination thereof ([0099]: “Device 100 may include a substrate 110, an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, a hole blocking layer 140, an electron transport layer 145, an electron injection layer 150, a protective layer 155, a cathode 160, and a barrier layer 170.”)
The emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1 ([0115]: “The organic layer can be an emissive layer and the compound can be an emissive dopant in some embodiments, while the compound can be a non-emissive dopant in other embodiments.”)
Wolohan does not specifically teach the use of the compound above in a device. Wolohan teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Wolohan as Wolohan demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 3, Wolohan teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a second compound represented by Formula 20
PNG
media_image7.png
164
190
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0135]: “Non-limiting examples of the host materials that may be used in an OLED in combination with materials disclosed herein are exemplified below…
PNG
media_image8.png
148
296
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed formula wherein CY71 and CY72 are π electron-rich C6 cyclic group and X71 is a single bond. As the list of required components recites a second compound, a third compound a fourth compound, or a combination thereof, the third and fourth compounds are interpreted as optional and Wolohan teaches the claimed limitations.)
As per claim 4, Wolohan teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits light having a maximum wavelength n a range of about 430 nm to about 480 nm (In Table 1, it is shown that Compound 1 emits between 425 – 435, which is interpreted as “about 430 nm” as claimed.)
As per claim 7, Wolohan teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device (As an OLED is an electronic apparatus, Wolohan meets the claimed limitations.)
Claims 1 – 7 and 10 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US20210066616A1) as applied to claims 9, 12, 15, 17 – 20 above.
As per claims 1, 2, 9 – 12, 14, 15, and 17 – 19, Fleetham teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer includes an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, and the interlayer further comprises: a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer or a combination thereof ([0100]: “Fig. 1 shows an organic light emitting device 100… Device 100 may include a substrate 110, an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, a hole blocking layer 140, an electron transport layer 145, an electron injection layer 150, a protective layer 155, a cathode 160, and a barrier layer 170.)
A condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image9.png
322
386
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Fleetham teaches compounds of the Formula
PNG
media_image10.png
146
170
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound taught by Fleetham is
PNG
media_image11.png
246
196
media_image11.png
Greyscale
on Page 29. While this compound contains a benzimidazole group, which is not allowed by the claims as currently amended, in the definitions for ring A and ring B in Formula 1 of Fleetham, Fleetham teaches that the rings can be selected from a benzimidazole group and a carbazole group ([0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the benzimidazole group in the above compound with a carbazole group. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein rings A1 and A3 are a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as per claim 10, a group represented by 4-1 in claim 11, and 11-2 in claim 15; ring A2 is a C12 heterocyclic group, namely a carbazole group as required by claim 10, a group represented by Formula 5-1 in claim 12, a group represented by 5A-1 in claim 14, and ring A21 is a C12 heterocyclic group, namely a group represented by 12-6 in claim 17 wherein Y1 is N(Z13) and 13-6 in claim 18; X1 and X2 are O; X3 is B; X21 is C; R1 to R3 are all hydrogen; R21 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; b1 and b2 are 0 so that T1 and T2 do not exist; T3 is a group represented by Formula 2; as ring A2 comprises a condensed ring in which two rings are condensed with each other and Ring A21 is a C12 heterocyclic group, the compound meets Conditions 2 and 4.)
The emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1 ([0075]: “In some embodiments of the OLED, the first organic layer is an emissive layer and the compound is a host. In some embodiments, the first organic layer is an emissive layer and the compound can be an emissive dopant or a non-emissive dopant.”)
Fleetham does not specifically teach the use of the compound above in a device. Fleetham teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Fleetham as Fleetham demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 3, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a second compound comprising a group represented by Formula 20
PNG
media_image12.png
164
204
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0084 – 0086], in some embodiments, the organic layer may further comprise a host… in some embodiments, the host may be selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image8.png
148
296
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed formula wherein CY71 and CY72 are π electron-rich C6 cyclic group and X71 is a single bond. As the list of required components recites a second compound, a third compound a fourth compound, or a combination thereof, the third and fourth compounds are interpreted as optional and Fleetham teaches the claimed limitations.)
Regarding the maximum emission wavelength in claim 4, Fleetham teaches in Table 1 that several of the compounds emit light in the claimed wavelength. Additionally, as Fleetham teaches compounds of the claimed Formula, the property of maximum emission wavelength is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Fleetham includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Fleetham being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved photophysical properties and improved OLED device performance ([0006]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 5, Fleetham teaches:
Wherein the interlay further comprises a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and the hole transport region comprises a compound represented by Formula 202
PNG
media_image13.png
175
470
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(In [0121 – 0127, Fleetham teaches Formulas and representative compounds suitable for use in the hole transport layer. Including in these compounds are
PNG
media_image14.png
306
496
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claim, wherein L205 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group and Xa5 is an integer of 3; xa1 to xa4 are 0 so that the corresponding L groups do not exist; R201 to R204 are all a substituted C6 carbocyclic group, wherein R201 and R204 are substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group and R202 and R203 are substituted with a C1 alkyl group.)
As per claims 6 and 20, Fleetham does not measure the bond dissociation energy of a single bond connecting ring A3 in Formula 1 with X21 in Formula 2. However, in Table 4 of the specification as filed, Applicant demonstrates that bonds with carbon-carbon bonds, such as those taught in Fleetham, generally have a bond dissociation energy of greater than 3.0 eV as claimed. Therefore, the property of bond dissociation energy of a single bond is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
As per claim 7, Fleetham teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device ([0109]: “The materials and structures described herein may have applications in devices other than OLEDs. For example, other optoelectronic devices such as organic solar cells and organic photodetectors may employ the materials and structures. More generally, organic devices, such as organic transistors, may employ the materials and structures.”)
As per claim 13, because the molecule is symmetrical, an additional interpretation is that ring B is a benzene group and ring A is a carbazole group, so that ring A1 reads on Formula 3-1 of claim 11 and Formula 3A-1 of claim 13.
As per claim 16, while the compound above contains two oxygen atoms, in the definitions for Y1 and Y2, Fleetham teaches that the atoms can be selected from among O or N ([0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound of Fleetham and arrive at the claimed compounds.
Fleetham includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Fleetham being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved photophysical properties and improved OLED device performance ([0006]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US20210066616A1) as applied to claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 20 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 8, Fleetham teaches that the devices of Fleetham can be used in transistors ([0109]). Fleetham does not teach:
The electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Fleetham in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights