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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 10/28/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 04/08/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the objections to claims 1, 20, 22, and 23 are withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 12 and 13 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claims 4 and 6 as being of improper dependent form, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-11, 17, 19-20, and 22-23 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0315776 A1), and of claims 12-16 and 18 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama and Park above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-23 were originally filed.
No claims are added or canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 12, 20, 22, and 23 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-23 are pending in the application, and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim has been amended to include the following limitations.
In Formula 1, each of R1 to R9 may independently be selected from a Markush group comprising an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl amino group and an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl amino group.
In Formula 3, each of R21 to R25 may independently be selected from a Markush group comprising an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl amino group and an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl amino group.
In Formula 7, each of R31 to R34 and R35 to R38 may independently be selected from a Markush group comprising an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl amino group and an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl amino group.
These limitations are not explicitly set forth in the instant specification, however, some specific embodiments provide partial support (e.g., compound 2-9 supports diphenylamino in compounds of Formula 7, and compound 2-24 provides support for di-p-tolylamino in compounds of Formula 7). It is also examiners position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize positional isomers of these compounds as being supported (MPEP 2144.09).
However, Examiner finds that the following limitations represent new matter.
In Formula 1, each of R1 to R9 may independently be selected from an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl amino group and an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl amino group.
In Formula 3, each of R21 to R25 may independently be selected from an unsubstituted or substituted C6-C30 aryl amino group and an unsubstituted or substituted C3-C30 hetero aryl amino group.
In Formula 7, each of R31 to R34 and R35 to R38 may independently be selected from any arylamine other than an unsubstituted diphenyl amino group and an unsubstituted di-p-tolylamino group.
Claims 2-23 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 4 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.
With respect to claim 4, the claim contains a compound that does not further limit the subject matter upon which it depends. Compound 1-3 does not meet the requirement of parent claim 1 wherein one or two of R1 to R3 and R7 to R9 have the moiety of Formula 2.
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 § 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 1-11, 17, 19-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (CN 107507921 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Hatakeyama discloses an organic light emitting diode (an organic EL element comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a negative electrode/cathode), an emissive layer between the electrodes comprising at least one emitting material layer (paragraph 0445), wherein the emitting layer comprises a first compound of general formula (1) (paragraph 0022), and a second compound of general formula (5) (paragraph 0061).
The first compound of general formula (1) is analogous to the instant second compound of formula (7), and the second compound of general formula (5) is analogous to the instant first compound of Formula (1).
Hatakeyama gives an example of the first compound (instant second compound), which includes the compound (1-1A-Cz4) (paragraph 0118), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula (7) when R36 is a C12 heteroaromatic group, and R32 and R33 form a substituted fused ring having boron and nitrogen. All other R characters are hydrogen atoms or not present.
Hatakeyama also gives an example of the second compound (instant first compound), which includes the compound (5-231) (page 258), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
356
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 5-231 is derived from Hatakeyama general formula (5) (paragraph 0172), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Hatakeyama teaches that R10 and R5 can be any heteroaryl group (paragraph 0174). However, Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest that the carbazolyl groups are condensed with a structure of instant Formula 3.
In analogous art, Li teaches a boron-comprising polyheterocyclic compound of general formula (3) (page 10 of the untranslated document) which is analogous to instant Formula 1 (see for example, compound B-12 on page 14 of the untranslated document) for use in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0009).
Li teaches that the compound may be substituted by one or more carbazole moieties of formula (9) (paragraph 0049), similar to the compound of Hatakeyama.
However, Li expands upon the work of Hatakeyama by also teaching that the boron-containing compound may be substituted by one or more carbazole groups which are further condensed with a group of general formula (10) (paragraph 0051), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
310
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, “a” is represented by a five-membered, C4 heterocycle, as pictured above, wherein X1 is selected from oxygen, sulfur, or arylamine (paragraph 0053), and the asterisks represent where the five-membered ring (a) is condensed to adjacent carbon atoms of the carbazole substituent (paragraph 0054).
Li teaches that the described boron compounds have separation of HOMO and LUMO electron cloud orbitals which reduces the singlet-triplet energy level difference of the material, allowing for delayed fluorescence (paragraph 0073), as well as reduced delayed fluorescence lifetime, which reduces the triplet quenching effect of the material and improves device efficiency (paragraph 0074).
Hatakeyama teaches boron-containing polycyclic compounds with carbazole substituents, which differ from the instantly claimed compounds of Formula 1 only in the presence of two or more moieties of instant Formula 2. However, Li demonstrates that use of substituents of instant Formula 2 on polycyclic boron-containing compounds was known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the substituents of instant Formula 2, as described by Li, in place of the carbazole substituents of Hatakeyama in order to obtain the predictable result of boron-comprising polycyclic compounds which have separation of HOMO and LUMO electron cloud orbitals, reduced singlet-triplet energy level difference of the material, delayed fluorescence, and reduced delayed fluorescence lifetime, reduced triplet quenching effect, and improved device efficiency, as taught by Li.
While several substituents of instant Formula 2 are within the scope of Li, in this correspondence, the moiety of Formula 2 will be treated as an indolo[3,2-a]carbazole.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when R2 and R8 are represented by Formula 2, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms. In Formula 2, R11 and R12 form a substituted heteroaromatic ring having the structure of Formula 3, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms. In Formula 3, X is NR25, R25 is a C6 aromatic group (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, and together with Formula 2, form an indolocarbazole moiety.
With respect to claim 2, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and the first compound is represented by Formula 4 when R1 and R7 are represented by Formula 2, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 3, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and the moiety represented by Formula 2 is the instant fifth embodiment, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
100
152
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and the first compound is identical to instant compound 1-1.
With respect to claim 5, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and the second compound comprises an organic compound having the structure of instant Formula 8B when R36 and R43 are a C12 heteroaryl group, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and the second compound is identical to instant compound 2-21.
With respect to claim 7, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama teaches that the emitting layer is a single layer (paragraph 0144 and Figured 1).
With respect to claim 8, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 7, and Hatakeyama teaches that the emitting layer may further comprise a third compound (a host compound) (paragraph 0162).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a host compound in the emitting layer of Hatakeyama and Li, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 9, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 8, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the first component (instant second compound) is present in a content of 0.0001% by weight to 2.0% by weight, the second component (instant first compound) is present in a content of 0.0999% by weight to 8.0% by weight, and the third compound (the host material) is present in a content of 90.0 % by weight to 99.9 % by weight with respect to the total weight of the light emitting layer-forming composition.
In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the concentration of the instant second compound overlaps with the prior art, and the concentrations of the instant first and third compounds in the prior art are very close to the instantly claimed concentrations. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches that the light emitting layer may be formed of a plurality of layers, each comprising a host and dopant (paragraph 0162), wherein the first compound (instant second compound) is a dopant and the second compound (instant first compound) is a host compound (see Table 5, page 319). Hatakeyama also teaches the emitting layer may comprise a assist dopant material (paragraph 0166).
In this respect, Hatakeyama teaches a plurality of emitting layers, each comprising a first compound, a second compound, and a third/fourth compound.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emitting layer of Hatakeyama and Li as the emitting layers in the device of Hatakeyama, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 17, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and Hatakeyama also teaches an organic light emitting device (organic EL element) comprising a substrate, and the diode of claim 1 is disposed on the substrate (paragraphs 0591-0593).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the organic EL element of Hatakeyama and Li on a substrate, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 19, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and R4 to R6 are all hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 20, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, and R2 and R8 are each represented by Formula 2, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
Hatakeyama compound 1-1A-Cz4 is derived from Hatakeyama formula (2), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
324
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama also teaches that R6 and R11 may be a heteroaryl group (paragraph 0037), such as carbazolyl (paragraph 0102, line 12).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claims.
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 result of a compound with shortened emission wavelength and reduced intermolecular stacking which increases the element efficiency (paragraph 0082), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) and Li et al. (CN 107507921 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claims 12, 14, and 16, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 10, as discussed above.
However, neither Hatakeyama nor Li teach that the light emitting layer specifically comprises a third emitting layer.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a tandem organic light emitting diode with three emitting parts (abstract, Figure 2 and paragraph 0095), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
794
672
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Shin teaches the third emitting layer (ST3) is disposed on an opposite side of the first emitting layer (ST2) from the second emitting layer (ST1) and there is a first charge generation layer (CGL2) between the first and third emitting layers, and a second charge generation layer (CGL1) between the second and first emitting layers.
Shin teaches that a tandem LED with a charge generation layer between each emitting unit smoothly distributes charges to each emitting layer, resulting in an LED with relatively long lifetime (paragraphs 0006-0007).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the at least one emitting layer of Hatakeyama and Li in any of the emitting layers of the tandem device of Shin in order to obtain a device wherein charge generation is charge is distributed smoothly to each emitting layer, resulting in a device with relatively long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 13, Hatakeyama, Li, and Shin teach the diode of claim 12, and as discussed above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emitting layer composition of Hatakeyama and Li in any of the light emitting layers of the device of Shin, wherein the compound of instant Formula 7 is the fifth compound, and the compound of instant Formula 1 is the sixth compound.
With respect to claim 15, Hatakeyama, Li, and Shin teach the diode of claim 14, and Shin teaches that the first emitting part includes the at least one emitting layer, as discussed above, and the second emitting part may emit red or green light (paragraph 0066).
With respect to claim 18, Hatakeyama and Li teach the diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, while Hatakeyama also teaches an organic light emitting display device (paragraph 0458), substrate (paragraph 0450), and a display comprising an array of pixels (paragraphs 0455-0456), neither Hatakeyama nor Li teach that each pixel comprises one or more individual organic light emitting diodes.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a tandem organic light emitting diode with three emitting parts (abstract, Figure 2 and paragraph 0095).
Shin teaches that an OLED display device includes a substrate, a light emitting diode, and a driving thin film transistor (paragraph 0122), and each thin film transistor may define a pixel region (paragraph 0123).
While Shin does not teach a specific motivation for this configuration, Shin is effective in demonstrating that a display device of this structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an organic light emitting device on a substrate comprising an array of pixels, wherein each pixel contains an individual light emitting diode, as taught by Shin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to claim 21, the claim requires the light emitting diode of claim 1, wherein the compound of Formula 7 does not comprise a fused ring structure formed by two adjacent of R31 to R38.
A search of the prior art did not identify the claimed invention.
The closes identified prior art is Hatakeyama et al (US 2020/0190115 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Hatakeyama an emission layer composition comprising two heteropolycyclic boron-containing compounds. The first compound of general formula (1) is analogous to the instant second compound of Formula 7.
Claim 21 of the instant application differs from the work of Hatakeyama because general formula (1) of Hatakeyama requires that two adjacent of instant R31 through R38 are joined to form a fused ring having boron and nitrogen, while claim 21 excludes this possibility.
Additionally, there existed no teaching nor motivation to make such a modification in the broader prior art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hatakeyama et al. (KR 2020/0132733 A, using the provided translation for references) – Teaches that polycyclic boron-containing heterocycles demonstrate improved T1 energy by introducing a carbazolyl group relative to the central boron atom in at least one ring (paragraph 0304). Such compounds are suitable for use in the electron transport region only (paragraph 0162).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights