DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment dated May 12, 2026. Claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 15-18 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all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends for the specific reasons set forth in the last office action is withdrawn due to amendment of claim 15. A new rejection is set forth below.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2019/0081248) is withdrawn due to the amendment received May 12, 2026.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2019/0081248) in view of view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment received May 12, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 15-18 are 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. 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 15 defines groups for variables including Ar3 group. Claim 15 depends upon claim 10, which contains a much narrower definition for Ar3 groups. Accordingly, claim 15 appears to recite groups for formula 1 compounds outside the scope of parent claim 10, upon which claim 15 depends. Claims 16-18 are included in the rejection, because the claims depend upon claim 15.
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.
Claims 10-13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being rejected by Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1).
Fleetham et al. teaches compounds of Formula I for organic electroluminescent devices (see title and abstract). More specifically, a Formula I example compound includes at least the following (see bottom of page 40), which anticipates the compound claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The above compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 compound claim 10 where each instant X1 to X3 is N, Ar1 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group, Ar2 is Formula 1-2 where Ar14 and Ar11 to Ar13 are each phenyl and Y1 is Si, and Ar3 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group. Regarding claim 11, L1 to L3 are not required as each of a1 to a3 may be zero and corresponding Ar14 is benzene in the above example compound. Regarding claim 12, L1 to L3 are not required as each of a1 to a3 may be zero and corresponding Ar14 is meta bonding benzene (per instant group 1-5-2) in the above example compound. Regarding claim 13, corresponding group to instant Ar3 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group in the above compound. Regarding claims 15 and 16, instant Formula 1-4 is considered to be an instant Formula 1-1 group for Ar3. Claim 18 is included in the rejection, because a group of Formula 1-3 is not necessarily required to be present.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleetham et al. (US 2021/0210700 A1).
Fleetham et al. exemplifies compounds of general formulas shown in par. 53 for use in a light emitting device as host material (see abstract and par. 53). With respect to independent compound claim 10, Fleetham et al. discloses at least the following specific compound (see bottom of page 196)
PNG
media_image2.png
236
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The compound meets the instant Formula 1 structure where each of X2 and X3 are nitrogen, Ar1 is formula 1-1 with CY1 and CY2 as C6 benzene, Ar2 is formula 1-2 with each of Ar11 to Ar14 as C6 phenyl/benzene, and Ar3 is carbazole.
With respect to claim 11, the above compound corresponds to instant Formula 1 where a1 to a3 are zero and Ar14 is divalent linking benzene. With respect to claim 12, the above corresponding Ar14 linker is meta-phenylene per instant 1-5-2. With respect to claims 15 and 16, corresponding Ar11, Ar12 and Ar13 are each phenyl and Ar3 is carbazole per instant 1-4 with respect to above compound. With further respect to the claims including claims 15, 17, and 18, the following compound is also taught where corresponding Ar12 is a formula 1-3 group (page 197, bottom left):
PNG
media_image3.png
246
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 18, the dibenzothiophene group shown in the immediately above compound has the bonding configuration of 1-3-1.
With respect to instant claim 13, at least the following compound is further taught where two groups correspond to Formula 1-1 (see page 196, right middle row):
PNG
media_image4.png
232
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, each of the specifically discussed compounds above in this rejection contain the following group, which corresponds to each of instant CY1 and CY2 as benzene in claim 19 and to instant group 1-1-1 of claim 20:
PNG
media_image5.png
134
140
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1).
Fleetham et al. teaches compounds of Formula I for organic electroluminescent devices (see title and abstract). More specifically, a Formula I example compound includes at least the following (see bottom of page 40):
PNG
media_image1.png
276
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The above compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 of claim 1 where each instant X1 to X3 is N, Ar1 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group, Ar2 is Formula 1-2 where Ar14 and Ar11 to Ar13 are each phenyl and Y1 is Si, and Ar3 is Formula 1-1 where one of CY1 or CY2 is carbocyclic group and the other is heterocyclic group. It is not seen where the specific, above compound was selected in forming an example device structure; however, Fleetham et al. describes the compounds for an emissive layer (see par. 137-139) per instant claims 1 and 2. Regarding claim 3, a phosphorescent emitter may be added (see par. 139).
Regarding claim 4, a device may include a hole transport region and an electron transport region (see par. 160-166, 180-184).
Regarding claim 5, blue light emission may be obtained from an emissive layer (see par. 5).
Regarding claim 7, an OLED may be used in an electronic application (see par. 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, a filter for colors may be used in a device (see par. 5).
While Fleetham et al. does not show an example device with the specific compound as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have formed device structures as discussed by Fleetham et al. having the compound as described above wherein the resultant device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Fleetham et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1) in view of view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Fleetham et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Fleetham et al. teaches a light emitting device, but does not appear specifically to teach a display comprising a transistor with a source and drain electrode. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a source region and a drain region as part of a thin film transistor (see par. 61) and color filters for pixels (see par. 75) as part of an OLED display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Jeong et al. to a device as taught by Fleetham et al. to form a display device, because Jeong et al. teaches using a color filter and using a thin film transistor with a device is beneficial in forming an operational light emitting display. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Fleetham et al. and in further view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2021/0210700 A1).
Fleetham et al. teaches compounds of Formula I for organic electroluminescent devices (see title and abstract). More specifically, a Formula I example compound includes at least the following specific compounds:
(see bottom of page 196):
PNG
media_image2.png
236
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see page 196, right middle row):
PNG
media_image4.png
232
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see page 197, bottom left):
PNG
media_image3.png
246
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
While Fleetham et al. made example devices with compounds EH-1 to EH-9 (see Table 1, page 290), it is not seen where the specific, above described compounds with instant formula 1 were selected in forming an example device structure; however, Fleetham et al. describes these disclosed compounds as suitable host material for an emissive layer of a device structure (see par. 148-149, pages 289-290) per instant claims 1 and 2. Regarding claim 3, a phosphorescent emitter may be added (see par. 147 and 149).
Regarding claim 4, a device may include a hole transport region and an electron transport region (see par. 149).
Regarding claim 5, blue light emission may be obtained from an emissive layer (see par. 5, 51).
Regarding claim 7, an OLED may be used in an electronic application (see par. 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, a filter for colors may be used in a device (see par. 5).
While Fleetham et al. does not show an example device with the specific compounds as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have formed device structures as discussed by Fleetham et al. having the compound as described above wherein the resultant materials and device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Fleetham et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2021/0210700 A1) in view of view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Fleetham et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Fleetham et al. teaches a light emitting device, but does not appear specifically to teach a display comprising a transistor with a source and drain electrode. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a source region and a drain region as part of a thin film transistor (see par. 61) and color filters for pixels (see par. 75) as part of an OLED display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Jeong et al. to a device as taught by Fleetham et al. to form a display device, because Jeong et al. teaches using a color filter and using a thin film transistor with a device is beneficial in forming an operational light emitting display. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Fleetham et al. and in further view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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 prior art fails to teach a device comprising a heterocyclic material according to instant Formula 1 within a layer functioning as a hole transporting layer in a device that also includes an emitting layer and electron transport region as required by a device structure of claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the independent claims 1 and 10 were amended to remove “a benzene group that is unsubstituted or substituted with at least one R10a” as an Ar3 definition, the previously applied Fleetham et al. reference did not require this corresponding removed feature be present in a compound. Fleetham et al. (US 2020/0270262 A1) continues to set forth compounds that meet the claimed Formula 1. Applicant’s remark about Compound 1 compared to Comparative Compound 2 demonstrating unexpected results is not sufficient to overcome the rejections over Fleetham et al. as Fleetham et al. anticipates some of the claims and also the comparative results are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claimed compounds and compounds of the prior art to overcome an obviousness rejection.
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 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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights