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 filed 01/22/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the cited references WO-2008101842-A and EP-1961743-A do not appear to be correct (it appears the Kind codes are incorrect) and they have been lined through. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to in the references lined through has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s election without traverse of species of (i) all of X1 to X4 are C, (iii) all of X5 to X8 are C, (v) x is 2, and (viii) y is 1 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
A search of the prior art did not anticipate or render obvious the elected species. As no claims are specifically drawn to Applicant's elected species in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. Claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of the elected species would be allowable.
Accordingly, the search was expanded to find an examinable species based on MPEP § 803.02. It is noted that the prior art search has not been extended to cover all nonelected species.
The next examinable species is (i) all of X1 to X4 are C, (iii) all of X5 to X8 are C, (v) x is 2, and (ix) y is 2. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-20 encompass the examinable species.
Claims 7 and 9 are withdrawn from consideration as not being drawn to the elected species.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, and 19-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
in claims 1, 17, and 20, in the definition of R1, R2, RA, and RB, it is suggested that "is independently a hydrogen or selected from the group consisting of hydrogen deuterium, halogen… selenyl, and combinations thereof" be changed to read "is independently a hydrogen or selected from the group consisting of
in claim 19 it is suggested that the acronyms "HIL, HTL, EBL, EML, HBL, ETL, and EIL" be spelled out for ease of reading; and
in claim 20 there appears to be an extra space between "a" and "cyclic" on line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20, the claim recited Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
225
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
with two groups bracketed and given indices "x" and "y". This does not appear to be a conventional notation for structures such as those recite in later dependent claims 13-15. It is unclear from this formula how the two groups in the brackets relate to one another and it is unclear what the dashed/dotted lines represent. Do the groups bond to one another at the dashed lines? Further, if there is more than one of each of the groups (for example, if y is 2 and x is 2), then how do the multiples of the groups relate to one another? May they connect to each other in any way, e.g. alternating (A-B-A-B), sequentially (A-A-B-B), or branched (A-A-B2)?
For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted such that the groups bond to one another at the dashed lines and if there is more than one of each of the groups, then the two groups may connect to each other in any way.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 16 are rejected for being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 18-19 are rejected for being dependent on indefinite claim 17.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites "wherein the compound is selected from the group consisting of…" and lists a table wherein the first entry, for example, reads
PNG
media_image2.png
220
959
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim is indefinite because it is unclear from the table what the structures of the claimed compounds are. For example, it is unclear how to interpret "Compound-1-(R1)(R1)(R1)(Z1)(Z1) to Compound-1-(R93)(R93)(R93)(Z17)(Z17)". Is this meant to be a range? If so, it is unclear how this range is to be interpreted.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that for the structures on pages 3-7, each of the variables Ri, Rj, and Rk may be selected from the groups R1 to R93 listed on pages 9-14 and each of the variables Zm and Zn may be selected from the groups Z1 to Z17 listed on pages 7-8.
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 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. US-20220119418-A1 (hereinafter "Chen").
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 16-20, Chen teaches an organic light-emitting device (OLED) having an organic layer comprising a compound of a Formula I (¶ [0008]) and a consumer product comprising the OLED (¶ [0009]). Chen teaches the OLED comprising an organic layer disposed between an anode and a cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the compound (¶ [0087]), wherein the organic layer is an emissive layer and the compound is an emissive dopant (¶ [0110]), and/or wherein the organic layer is an emissive layer that comprises a phosphorescent emitter and the compound is a host (¶ [0074]). Chen teaches that in any compounds used in the OLED device, the hydrogen atoms can be partially or fully deuterated (¶ [0141]). Chen teaches the compound has the beneficial properties of aggregation prevention and high T1 in solid state (¶ [0148]). Chen teaches examples of the compound of Formula I in paragraph [0071] including
PNG
media_image3.png
353
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 15).
Chen does not exemplify a compound of Formula I that meets the claimed Formula I. For example, the compound shown above differs from the claimed compound in that the position corresponding to L1 in Chen's Formula I is O instead of SiRR', GeRR', or Se. However, Chen teaches that L1 is selected from the group consisting of O, S, Se, BR, BRR', CRR', SiRR', and GeRR' (¶ [0006]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Chen, 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 the O in the position L1 of Chen's formula with S, Se, BR, BRR', SiRR' or GeRR' where R and R' are each phenyl, because Chen teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such and teaches exemplary compounds wherein R and R' are each a phenyl group. The substitution would have been one known 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 in the emissive layer of the device of Chen and possess the beneficial properties of aggregation prevention and high T1 in solid state taught by Chen. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound of Chen is a compound of the claimed Formula I wherein:
Z is in each case SiR1R2 or one of Z is SiR1R2 and the other is S, Se, BR1, BR1R2 or GeR1R2;
X1 to X8 are each C;
RA is in mono substitution and RB is maximum substitution;
R1 and R2 are each an aryl (a phenyl group), RA is a heteroaryl (a carbazole), and RB is in each case hydrogen;
x = 2; and
y = 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, exemplified by Chen et al. US-20220119418-A1, teaches an organic light-emitting device (OLED) having an organic layer comprising a compound of a Formula I (¶ [0008]) and teaches examples of the compound of Formula I in paragraph [0071] including
PNG
media_image3.png
353
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 15). However, Chen does not teach a compound that meets the claimed Formula I where the L1 and L2 groups of Chen's general formula are separated by one instead of two phenylenes. Further, the prior art does not provide a reason to modify the compound of Chen to arrive at a compound that meets the claimed Formula I where the L1 and L2 groups of Chen's general formula are separated by one instead of two phenylenes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dyatkin et al. US-20160285009-A1 teaches a compound of a Formula I
PNG
media_image4.png
89
141
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0017]) for use in an organic layer of an OLED (¶ [0025]); Fleetham et al. US-20220131088-A1 teaches a compound of a general formula I
PNG
media_image5.png
268
260
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(¶[0006]) for use in an organic layer of an OLED (¶ [0008]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights