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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
This action is a reply to the communication filed on 04/28/2026.
Claims 1–3 are amended, Claim 10 is new, Claim 6 was canceled previously. Claims 1–5 and 7–10 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2016/0197285 A1, hereinafter “Zeng”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereinafter “Li”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/28/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 8–11 of the reply dated 04/28/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to further define L1 to be a naphthylene group or a phenanthrenylene group. Applicant argues that Zeng fails to include a naphthylene group or a phenanthrenylene group at a position that may be said to correspond to L1 of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1.
Examiner's response – The examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, after another search, new art has been found which reads on Applicant’s amended claims, as discussed below.
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 1–5, 7–8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2022/080993 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereinafter “Li”). An English translation of Kim has been provided in this Office Action.
Regarding Claims 1–5, 7–8, and 10, Kim discloses compound BH 1-6 [423]. Kim teaches organic light emitting devices comprising compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 and Formula 2 in the emissive layer result in low operating voltage, excellent efficiency characteristics, and excellent lifespan [29]. Additionally, compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 have a high triplet energy level which can further increase efficiency [30].
BH 1-6 nearly reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. However, BH 1-6 does not comprise deuterium, which is required by Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1.
BH 1-6 is represented by Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 [14] (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
222
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
153
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted triphenylene group,
L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group (naphthalene),
n1 is 1,
X1 is O,
R1 to R8 are each hydrogen
Kim teaches R1 to R8 can be deuterium [19]. Kim further teaches that “substituted or unsubstituted” can refer to deuterium [42]. Therefore, Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 allows compounds to be fully deuterated.
Li teaches the carbon-deuterium chemical bond is stronger, more stable, and reacts more slowly than the carbon-hydrogen chemical bond, so that the deuterated organic system has better thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices [0009].
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kim, 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 each hydrogen with deuterium in BH 1-6, because Kim teaches the variable may suitably be selected as deuterium. The substitution would have been one preferred 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 a host in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possess the benefits taught by Li. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose deuterium, because it would have been choosing between the substituents taught by Kim, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Li in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the modified version of compound BH 1-6 (hereinafter “Modified BH 1-6”) reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image3.png
350
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
298
463
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 is O,
L1 is a naphthylene group substituted with deuterium,
R1 to R5 are each deuterium,
m1 to m3 are each 4, m4 and m5 are each 3.
Per Claims 2–4 and 10, L1 is a naphthylene group substituted with deuterium and R1 to R5 are each deuterium in Modified BH 1-6.
Per Claim 5, Modified BH 1-6 is represented by Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-2 (shown below), wherein X1, L1, R1 to R5, and m1 to m5 are defined the same as those of Chemical Formula 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
230
285
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
298
463
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 7 and 8, Kim teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer comprising compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 and Formula 2, such as Modified BH 1-6 [9] – [14].
Kim teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer wherein Modified BH 1-6 is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use Modified BH 1-6 in the organic layer with the device structure of Kim as Kim demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li as applied to claim 1–5, 7–8, and 10 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 2005630, hereinafter “Hong”).
Kim in view of Lee teaches Modified BH 1-6, as described above. Kim further teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer comprising compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 and Formula 2, such as Modified BH 1-6 [9] – [14].
However, Kim is silent with respect to a display device.
Hong teaches organic light emitting diodes are colored light sources, used in displays of smartphones and TV screens as well as in panels for lighting applications [Introduction ⁋1].
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 the organic light emitting device, taught by Kim, in a display device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kim and Hong according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with low operating voltage, excellent efficiency characteristics, and excellent lifespan, as taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takashima et al. (US 8.940,412 B2, hereinafter “Takashima”) discloses compound 3-48 [column 235] which nearly reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. However, it does not comprise deuterium. Takashima teaches the compounds may comprise heavy hydrogen [column 4, line 11]. Therefore, a similar modification as shown above may be done in view of Li.
PNG
media_image6.png
158
409
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights