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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on August 19, 2026.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 and 3 – 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed August 19, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 3 – 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed July 6, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 19, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 15 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon as set forth in the office action filed July 6, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 19, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 15 – 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seda as set forth in the office action filed July 6, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 – 21 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.
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 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolohan (US20210122765A1).
As per claims 15 and 21, Wolohan teaches:
A polycyclic aromatic compound represented by Formula A-2
PNG
media_image1.png
146
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Wolohan teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
224
170
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein X is B; Y is S; two Z atoms are N and the rest are CR6; one R6 is a C13 heteroaryl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen; Q1 and Q2 are each a C6 aromatic hydrocarbon ring.)
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 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.
Claims 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan (US20210122765A1) as applied to claims 15 and 20 above.
As per claims 16, 17, and 21, Wolohan does not specifically teach the use of the particular compound above in a device. However, Wolohan teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an organic layer interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises at least one of an electron injection layer, an electron transport layer, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole blocking layer, and a light-emitting layer ([0106]: “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.”)
Wherein at least one of the layers comprises the polycyclic aromatic compound ([0100]: “In yet another aspect, the OLED of the present disclosure may also comprise an emissive region containing a compound as disclosed in the above compounds section of the present disclosure.”)
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.
Claims 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20210217963A1).
As per claims 15 and 20, Choi teaches:
A polycyclic aromatic compound represented by Formula A-2
PNG
media_image1.png
146
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Choi teaches compounds of Formula 2
PNG
media_image3.png
138
262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A specific compound within the scope of Formula 2 taught by Choi is
PNG
media_image4.png
178
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on Page 34. However, Choi teaches that Y1 and Y2 in Formula 2 may be selected as NRa or S ([0017]). 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 N-dibenzofuran groups in the compound above with S atoms. Furthermore, Choi teaches that CY3 can be selected from an unsubstituted aryl or aromatic hetero ring ([0018]). Choi teaches that the aromatic hetero ring can be selected from a pyridine group ([0069]). Therefore, it would also have been obvious to further modify the compound above to replace the benzene ring in the position represented by Cy3 in the formula with a pyridine ring. When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X is B; Y is S; one Z is N and the remaining Z’s are CR6 where the R groups are hydrogen; Q1 and Q2 are both an unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon ring.)
Choi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Choi 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 organic light emitting devices having high light emitting efficiency and long service life characteristics ([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 claims 16, 17 and 20, Choi teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an organic layer interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises at least one of an electron injection layer, an electron transport layer, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole blocking layer, and a light-emitting layer ([0023]: “FIG. 2 illustrates an example of an organic light emitting device composed of a substrate 1, a positive electrode 2, a hole injection layer 5, a first hole transport layer 6, a second hole transport layer 7, a light emitting layer 8, an electron transport layer 9, an electron injection layer 10, and a negative electrode 4.”)
Wherein at least one of the layers comprises the polycyclic aromatic compound (Choi teaches that the light emitting layer in the OLED contains both a compound represented by Formula 2 (Abstract).)
As per claims 18 and 19, Choi teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer comprises an anthracene derivative represented by Formula C as a host compound
PNG
media_image5.png
170
232
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Choi teaches that the light emitting layer in the OLED contains both a compound represented by Formula 2 and a compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
164
286
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound taught by Choi within the scope of Formula 1 is compound
PNG
media_image7.png
184
226
media_image7.png
Greyscale
on Page 6. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R27 is a C10 aryl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen.; Ar9 and Ar10 are a C6 aryl group, represented by Formula C-1 in claim 19; L13 is a single bond and k is an integer of 1.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, and 3 – 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 1, the closest prior art is considered to be Kim (US20230114182A1), cited previously. Kim teaches fused polycyclic boron-containing compounds with extended fused ring groups. However, Kim does not teach or suggest that the extended fused group contains a five-membered ring fused to a phenyl fused to a five or six member ring with a double bond on the far side of the ring as required by the Q1 group in claim 1 as amended.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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