DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 2/3/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 2/3/2026. In particular, original Claim1 has been amended to recite a combination of limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 2021/0217963, cited on IDS filed on 1021/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al discloses the following compound (Page 40):
PNG
media_image1.png
333
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where RI, RII, RIV, RV, RVI, RVII, RIX, RX and RXI are hydrogen; RIII and RVIII are tert-butyl, i.e. C4 alkyls; and V and W are tert-butyl groups, i.e. C4 alkyls.
In the compound of the reference, T and X are hydrogen atoms and not C6 aryls as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed Formula 2-1 ([0110]):
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where rings Cy1 and Cy2 are substituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings ([0112] and [0047]). The term “substitution” is defined as encompassing multiple substituents including substituents such as aryl ([0053]-[0055]), and the term “aryl” is defined as encompassing phenyl ([0065]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where T and X are phenyl groups, i.e. C6 aryl groups, as encompassed by the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses a compound where T and X are phenyl groups; and V and W are tert-butyl groups.
Regarding claim 3, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formula I-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
208
284
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RI, RII, RIV, RV, RVI, RVII, RIX, RX and RXI are hydrogen; RIII and RVIII are tert-butyl i.e. C4 alkyls.
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RI, RII, RIV, RV, RVI, RVII, RIX, RX and RXI are hydrogen; RIII and RVIII are tert-butyl.
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound does not correspond to Formula Ii of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
236
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
However, in Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
the groups Ra and Rb are exemplified as biphenyl groups in the following compound (Page 41):
PNG
media_image5.png
282
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Formula Ii of the claims, where RIII is phenyl, i.e. a C6 aryl.
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound does not correspond to Formula IId of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
198
292
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
However, in Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
the groups Ra and Rb are exemplified as phenyl groups in the following compound (Page 41):
PNG
media_image5.png
282
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Formula IId.
Regarding claim 8, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RXI is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 9, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RXI is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RXI is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 11, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode, comprising the disclosed compound (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer where the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound as dopant, i.e. emitter, (Abstract – Formula 2 and [0131]) and a second compound represented by Formula 1 as a host (Abstract and [0131]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a composition comprising the disclosed compound as a first emitter and a host material as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses a light emitting device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode, comprising a light emitting layer, i.e. a composition.
Regarding claim 14, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0022] - Figure 1):
PNG
media_image7.png
352
474
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 1 is the substate ([0022]); layer 2 is the positive electrode, i.e. anode ([0022]); and layer 4 is the negative electrode, i.e. cathode ([0022]). Layer 3 is the light emitting layer ([0022]) which is disposed between the anode (layer 2) and cathode (layer 4) and comprises the disclosed compound (Abstract – Formula 2).
Regarding claim 16, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0022] - Figure 1):
PNG
media_image7.png
352
474
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 1 is the substate ([0022]); layer 2 is the positive electrode, i.e. anode ([0022]); layer 4 is the negative electrode, i.e. cathode ([0022]). Layer 3 is the light emitting layer ([0022]) which is disposed between the anode (layer 2) and cathode (layer 4) and which is formed from the composition (Abstract – Formula 2).
Regarding claim 17, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses a method for forming an organic light emitting device, i.e. an optoelectronic device ([0154]-[0156]), where the organic layer, i.e. the light emitting layer, comprising the disclosed compound is formed by solvent process ([0156]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a method for producing an optoelectronic device where the disclosed compound is deposited from a solution as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 18, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, one of RI to RXI is not phenyl substituted with a cyclohexyl group. However, in the in Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
Cy3 can be a substituted aryl ([0113]). The term “substituted” includes two or more substituents that are linked, ([0055]). As substituents the reference discloses aryl such as phenyl and cycloalkyls such as cyclohexyl ([0055] and [0064]-[0065]). The disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where RXI is a phenyl (Ph) substituted with a cyclohexyl group.
Regarding claim 19, Choi et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above the compound does not correspond to Formula Ib of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
252
264
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
However, in Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
Rb can be a substituted aryl group. The term “substitution” is defined as encompassing substituents such as cycloalkyl ([0053]-[0055]), and the term “cycloalkyl” is defined as encompassing cyclohexyl ([0064]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where Rb is a phenyl substituted with a cycloalkyl group as required by Formula Ib of the present claims..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the claim amendments the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Hatakeyama et al, as set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Choi et al does not disclose, anticipate, or motivate the specific paired selection pattern across both phenyl rings (top positions) in recited Formula I. However, as discussed above, Choi et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
333
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where T and X are hydrogen atoms and not C6 aryls as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed Formula 2-1 ([0110]):
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where rings Cy1 and Cy2 are substituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings ([0112] and [0047]). The term “substitution” is defined as encompassing multiple substituents including substituents such as aryl ([0053]-[0055]), and the term “aryl” is defined as encompassing phenyl ([0065]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where T and X are phenyl groups, i.e. C6 aryl groups, as encompassed by the present claims.
Applicants argue that the compound selected by the Office appears to be the only one that all of T, V, Wand X are substituted concurrently, but they all have the same substituents - i.e., a methyl group. However, firstly it is noted that in the rejection set forth tert-butyl groups, i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Secondly, while the exemplified compound does not possess the recited phenyl substitution, the fact remains that the reference discloses a general formula for the compound, i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
and further discloses that rings in the general formula can possess multiple substitutions, including phenyl groups. To that end it is noted that “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Applicants argue that Choi fails to provide any teaching or even suggestion to combine a C1-12-alkyl and C5-18-aryl at the recited positions in each of the two phenyl groups on top of the structure. However, as discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
333
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
as well as the general formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where rings Cy1 and Cy2 can possess multiple substitutions. In light of this disclosure it is the Office’s position that the reference provides a teaching to combine a C1-12-alkyl and C5-18-aryl at the recited positions in each of the two phenyl groups on top of the structure.
Applicants argue that the Office's reliance on generic substitution definitions (e.g., "alkyl includes tert-butyl; aryl includes phenyl") should at least now not supply the reason to select these specific paired, position-specific alternatives as arranged in claim 1. However, the Office is not relying on generic substitution definitions. Rather, as discussed in the rejection above the reference explicitly discloses a compound comprising tert-butyl substituents, i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
and further discloses the general formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where rings Cy1 and Cy2 can possess multiple substitutions, including aryl groups.
Applicants argue that there should at least now be no reasoned motivation to "pair'' alkyl and aryl across T/N and W/X in the claimed arrangement-rather than simply substituting methyl with another alkyl everywhere. However, as discussed above, it is noted that in the rejection set forth tert-butyl groups, i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Secondly, while the exemplified compound does not possess the recited phenyl substitution, the fact remains that the reference discloses a general formula for the compound, i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
and further discloses that rings in the general formula can possess multiple substitutions, including phenyl groups. Accordingly, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of select any of the substituents disclosed by the reference including the phenyl substituents at the desired positions on the aromatic rings, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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 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 ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786