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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 3 are amended. Claims 1–11 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1–2, 4–6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0069182 A1, hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 4–6, and 10–11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 111574544 A, hereinafter “Wu”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 4–8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0411771 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 7–9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kim is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Suresh et al. (Adv. Funct. Mater.2020, 30, 1908677) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/22/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 30–31 of the reply dated 06/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1–2, 4–6, and 11 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant argues that Compound 1-72 disclosed by Hatakeyama does not read on Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 1. L2 in Compound 1-72 is represented by an aromatic carbon atom. However, Applicant’s Formula 1 requires L2 to be an aliphatic carbon atom.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees. L2 is defined to be represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
68
69
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and accordingly must be sp3 hybridized. Therefore, Compound 1-72 does not read on Applicant’s Formula 1 and was used to improperly reject claims 1–2, 4–6, and 11. Claims 1, 4–6, and 11 were rejected as being unpatentable over Wu, however claim 2 was not covered. Therefore, this office action is not made final.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 32–34 of the reply dated 06/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4–8, and 10–11 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant has amended claim 1 and 3 to not allow both L1 and L-2 to be a single bond.
Examiner's response – Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejections relying on Wu’s Compound 205 and Kim’s Compound BD-30. Therefore, the rejections relying upon those compounds are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 34–35 of the reply dated 06/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 3 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 claim 1 and 3 to not allow both L1 and L-2 to be a single bond. Applicant then argues that there is no motivation taught by Kim to modify Wu wherein L1 and L2 are not both single bonds.
Examiner's response – Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejections relying on Wu’s Compound 205. Therefore, the rejections relying upon those compounds are withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 09/04/2020 and an application filed in Korea on 09/01/2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner’s position that at least the chemical structure formulas of Formula I and Formula II of claim 1 should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayano (US 2021/0111344 A1, hereinafter “Hayano”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayano discloses Compound 36 [pg. 15] which reads on Applicant’s Formula II (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
278
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
426
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Rings A to F are each a C6 monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring (benzene),
X is B,
L1 to L4 are each
PNG
media_image4.png
59
59
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(*-N(R1)-*),
Z is CR wherein R is hydrogen for the left and right Z, and the middle Z is a C6 monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring (phenyl) substituted with an amine, which is further substituted with a phenyl and a boryl, wherein R is bonded to ring E to form an alicyclic polycyclic ring,
R1 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl)
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (WO 2024/031919 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”). An English translation of Zhang has been provided in this Office Action.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses TCZ-F-DABNA [0054] which reads on Applicant’s Formula II (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
278
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
250
340
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Rings A to F are each a C6 monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring (benzene),
X is B,
L1 and L4 are each
PNG
media_image4.png
59
59
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(*-N(R1)-*),
L2 and L3 are each a single bond,
Z are each CR wherein R is a hydrogen atom,
R1 are each bonded to the adjacent ring C and ring D, respectively, to form an aromatic polycyclic ring.
Regarding Claims 4–6, Zhang discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises TCZ-F-DABNA as a dopant and PhCzBCz as a host [0060].
Regarding Claim 10, the organic light emitting device disclosed by Zhang was formed in a vacuum evaporation tank using vacuum deposition [0060].
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 4–6 and 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayano (US 2021/0111344 A1).
Regarding Claims 4–6 and 10, Hayano teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer between the two electrodes comprising a compound represented by Hayano’s Formula 1 ([0019] and [0026]), such as Compound 36. Hayano further teaches exemplified organic electroluminescent devices comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer comprising a host and a compound of Hayano’s Formula 1 as a dopant, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0162] – [0164]. Additionally, Hayano teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising compounds of Hayano’s Formula 1 have excellent emission efficiency properties and excellent device life characteristics ([0006] and [0168]).
However, Hayano fails to disclose an exemplified organic electroluminescent device comprising Compound 36.
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 Compound 36 in the emission layer of the organic electroluminescent device taught by Hayano, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hayano according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic electroluminescent device with the excellent efficiency and life characteristics, as taught by Hayano. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claims 4–6, the organic electroluminescent device, as described above (hereinafter “Device 1”), reads on Applicant’s limitations since it comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer comprising a host and Compound 36 as a dopant, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode.
Per Claim 10, Hayano teaches the hole transport region, the emission layer, the electron transport region, and the second electrode were formed using vacuum deposition [0165].
Regarding Claim 11, Hayano teaches an organic electroluminescent device may be used in a display wherein increased efficiency and life of the organic electroluminescent device is desired [0003] – [0004].
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 Device 1 in a display, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hayano according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display with the excellent efficiency and life characteristics, as taught by Hayano. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayano (US 2021/0111344 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 10-11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0411771 A1).
Regarding Claim 7-–9, Hayano teaches Device 1 comprising Compound 36 as the dopant.
However, Hayano fails to disclose an anthracene based host material.
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light emitting layer comprising a compound of Chemical Formula 1, a compound of Chemical Formula 2, and a compound of Chemical Formula 3 [abstract]. Chemical Formula 1, exemplified by Host 1 [pg. 16], and Chemical Formula 2, exemplified by Host 2 [pg. 27], are drawn to anthracene based host materials, while Chemical Formula 3 is drawn to a dopant similar to the compounds taught by Wu. Kim teaches that using compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2, and Chemical Formula 3 in the light emitting layer results in a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime [0277].
PNG
media_image6.png
230
195
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
332
194
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
227
221
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
333
148
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
372
137
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 modify Device 1 by using Host 1 and Host 2, taught by Kim, instead of mCP, taught by Hayano, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce an organic light-emitting device with the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime, as taught by Kim.
Additionally, 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 Host 1 and Host 2, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of compounds useful as host material in the light emitting layer of the organic light-emitting device of Wu and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 having the benefits taught by Kim 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 7, the modified version of Device 1, as described above (hereinafter “Modified Device 1”), comprises Host 1 which is an anthracene derivative represented by Applicant’s Formula C (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
249
247
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
333
148
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar9 is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
L13 is a C6 arylene (phenylene),
k is 1,
Ar10 is a C12 aryl (naphthyl),
R21 to R28 are each hydrogen.
Per Claim 8, Modified Device 1 comprises Host 1 which reads on Applicant’s Formula C-1 (shown below), wherein R31 to R35 are each a hydrogen.
PNG
media_image12.png
333
148
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
198
161
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 9, Modified Device 1 comprises Host 1 which is the same as Applicant’s Compound C1.
PNG
media_image14.png
180
205
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
333
148
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2024/031919 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang teaches organic light emitting diodes are widely used in the fields of flexible screen display, daily lighting, etc. [0002]. Zhang further teaches development of organic light emitting materials with higher color purity is desired for high definition and ultra-thin display technologies [0002]. Additionally, Zhang teaches the compounds of present disclosure exhibit high efficiency and high color purity when used in an organic light emitting device.
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 Zhang, in a display, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Zhang according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display with the high efficiency and high color purity benefits, as taught by Zhang. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2024/031919 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 10-11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0411771 A1).
Regarding Claim 7-–9, Zhang discloses the organic light emitting device comprising TCZ-F-DABNA as the dopant.
However, Zhang fails to disclose an anthracene based host material.
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light emitting layer comprising a compound of Chemical Formula 1, a compound of Chemical Formula 2, and a compound of Chemical Formula 3 [abstract]. Chemical Formula 1, exemplified by Host 1 [pg. 16], and Chemical Formula 2, exemplified by Host 2 [pg. 27], are drawn to anthracene based host materials, while Chemical Formula 3 is drawn to a dopant similar to the compounds taught by Wu. Kim teaches that using compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2, and Chemical Formula 3 in the light emitting layer results in a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime [0277].
PNG
media_image6.png
230
195
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
332
194
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
227
221
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
333
148
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
372
137
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 modify the organic light emitting device, taught by Zhang, by using Host 1 and Host 2, taught by Kim, instead of PhCzBCz, taught by Zhang, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce an organic light-emitting device with the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifetime, as taught by Kim.
Additionally, 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 Host 1 and Host 2, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of compounds useful as host material in the light emitting layer of the organic light-emitting device of Wu and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by/devices comprising compounds of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 having the benefits taught by Kim 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 7, the modified version the organic light emitting device taught by Zhang, as described above (hereinafter “Device 2”) comprises Host 1 which is an anthracene derivative represented by Applicant’s Formula C (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
249
247
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
333
148
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar9 is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
L13 is a C6 arylene (phenylene),
k is 1,
Ar10 is a C12 aryl (naphthyl),
R21 to R28 are each hydrogen.
Per Claim 8, Device 2 comprises Host 1 which reads on Applicant’s Formula C-1 (shown below), wherein R31 to R35 are each a hydrogen.
PNG
media_image12.png
333
148
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
198
161
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 9, Device 2 comprises Host 1 which is the same as Applicant’s Compound C1.
PNG
media_image14.png
180
205
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
333
148
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are 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.
Claim 2 claims compounds represented by Formula I-1, II-1, II-2, or II-3. Hayano and Zhang, the closest prior art, do not teach or suggest compounds which read on Formula I-1, II-1, II-2, or II-3.
Claim 3 claims exemplified compounds 1–210. Hayano and Zhang, the closest prior art, do not teach or suggest compounds which read on exemplified compounds 1–210.
Kim teaches anthracene based host materials and therefore does not remedy the deficiencies of Hayano or Zhang.
Conclusion
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