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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 13-14, and 16-18 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 03/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the drawings as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/27/2026.
The objection to claims 3-4 and 14 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/27/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Wang (English translation of CN 112645969 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Yoon (US 2020/0308209 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham in view of Wang, Yoon, and Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham in view of Wang, Yoon, and Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham in view of Wang, Yoon, and Lu (English translation of CN 113336782 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 4 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham in view of Wang, Yoon, Hatakeyama and Lu is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham in view of Wang is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham in view of Wang and Hatakeyama is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham in view of Wang, Hatakeyama, and Lu is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 50-55 of the reply dated 03/27/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 50-54, Applicant argues the cited Fleetham compound does not fall within Fleetham’s Formula I, as Fleetham requires that at least one of X1 or X2 is nitrogen. Applicant further argues that Fleetham teaches against replacing the N with C due to the compound having much higher triplet energy than the carbon counterpart (see Fleetham, ¶ [0149]). Applicant argues that as the compound is not covered by the general definition of Formula I, it should not be subject to modification based on the general substituent definitions of Formula I.
Fleetham’s Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
145
167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues that as Fleetham’s compound does not fall within Fleetham’s Formula I, it is unclear what the compound may be used for and how to use it and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found any reason or motivation to modify the cited Fleetham compound in view of Wang.
Examiner's response –Fleetham is directed to boron containing organic molecules which can be used as hosts or emitters in OLED devices (¶ [0006]). As Fleetham’s compound is a boron containing organic molecule and is specifically taught by Fleetham, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it as suitable for use as a host or emitter in an OLED device.
While Fleetham’s compound may not read on the limitation that at least one of X1 or X2 is nitrogen, Fleetham does teach a compound can be selected from the formula below (¶ [0069]):
Fleetham’s formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
156
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fleetham’s compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
190
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, the locations corresponding to Fleetham’s X1 and X2 are each C. Accordingly, Fleetham’s compound at least falls within the scope of this formula. As previously defined by Fleetham, Y1 may be selected as Se (¶ [0007]). Accordingly, modifying Fleetham’s compound with Se in the location of Y1 is within the scope of Fleetham’s teachings.
However, even if Fleetham’s compound did not read on a general formula taught by Fleetham, it still would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the oxygen atom with a selenium atom given that Wang teaches selenium provides benefits of a narrow half-peak width and a device with high external quantum efficiency (end of page 2 to beginning of page 3).
Applicant's argument –On pages 54-55, Applicant argues the cited references fail to read on the claims as amended which require R7 to be selected from groups that do not include hydrogen.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail below, the previously cited reference Lu provides motivation to include a terphenyl group in the location of the claimed R7. Accordingly, the cited references teach the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to for being indicated as “(Currently Amended)” when there are no new amendments present.
For ease of reading, it is recommended in claim 14 to remove the extraneous “a” in the limitation “R7 is a represented by any one of Substituent Group S1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Wang (English translation of CN 112645969 A obtained from Global Dossier), Lu (English translation of CN 113336782 A1 obtained from Global Dossier), and Yoon (US 2020/0308209 A1), as evidenced by Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9-14, Fleetham teaches a compound represented by Formula I for use as a host or emitter in an OLED, wherein the compound provides the OLED with improved device performance (abstract; ¶ [0006] and [0074]-[0076]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I include the compound below on page 26.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
154
181
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fleetham’s compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
190
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fleetham’s compound fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it does not comprise S, Se, or Te in the location of the claimed Y. However, in Formula I, Fleetham teaches Y1 may be selected as O, S, Se, BR, NR, PR, CRR’, SRR’, or GeRR’ (¶ [0007]).
Wang teaches a compound represented by formula (I) which comprises boron, nitrogen, and selenium or tellurium in the location of X (beginning of page 2). The compound represented by formula (I) is used as a light-emitting material in an organic light-emitting device and by including selenium or tellurium, the compound obtains narrow half-peak width and provides the device with high external quantum efficiency (end of page 2 to beginning of page 3). Examples of compounds represented by formula (I) include compound a1-1 (page 23).
Formula (I):
PNG
media_image5.png
292
269
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a1-1:
PNG
media_image6.png
109
151
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in Fleetham’s compound, 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 O with Se as shown in Wang’s a1-1, to arrive at a compound represented by Wang’s formula (I) based on the teaching of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound that obtains narrow half-peak width and a device with high external quantum efficiency, as taught by Wang.
Fleetham in view of Wang:
PNG
media_image7.png
290
339
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang fails to comprise a substituent in the location of the claimed R7. However, Fleetham does teach in Formula I that RC may be selected as an aryl substituent (¶ [0007]).
Lu teaches a three-coordinated boron light-emitting compound wherein a large steric hindrance group is provided on the periphery of the entire molecular skeleton (beginning of page 2). The large steric hindrance group alleviates the problem of efficiency roll-off and provides a compound with a narrow spectrum and a device with high efficiency under brightness (beginning of page 2). Examples of the large steric hindrance group include terphenyl, as shown in compound BN-1 (page 3).
BN-1:
PNG
media_image8.png
198
226
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang, 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 a terphenyl group in the location of RC in the para-position with respect to the C-B bond as shown in Lu’s BN-1, to arrive at a compound containing a large steric hindrance group based on the teaching of Lu. The motivation for doing so would have been to alleviate the problem of efficiency roll-off, and provide a compound with a narrow spectrum and a device with high efficiency under brightness, as taught by Lu.
The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu reads on Wang’s formula (I) wherein: a is 0; X is Se; Y is not required to be present; Ar1 to Ar3 are each an unsubstituted six-membered aromatic ring; Ra is a substituted C6 aromatic group, Rb and Rc are each not required to be present, and Rd is an unsubstituted C18 aromatic group; and m, n, and p are each 0 (see Wang, pages 3-4). Accordingly, the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu is expected to obtain the benefits of Wang.
The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
394
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image10.png
210
279
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
Y is Se;
R1 to R6 are each hydrogen and R7 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl) (claims 9-14); and
n1 and n2 are each 4, n3 is 2, n4 and n6 are each 5, and n5 is 3.
While Fleetham teaches the compound represented by Formula I is used as a host or fluorescent emitter in an OLED, Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu fail to teach a device comprising the modified compound and a compound represented by one of the claimed Formulas 2, 3, or 4.
Yoon teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer comprising a first host, a first dopant, and a second dopant, wherein the first dopant is an organic metallic compound represented by one of Formulae 40 and 50 and the second dopant is a phosphorescent, fluorescent, or delayed fluorescent dopant (abstract; ¶ [0111]). Such a device obtains low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and improved lifespan characteristics (¶ [0005]). Yoon teaches examples of such devices including the device of Example 1 which comprises: an anode; a hole injection layer; a hole transport layer; an emission layer comprising a host of mCBP, a first dopant of compound 40-1, and a second dopant of compound 12-1; an electron transport layer; an electron injection layer; and a cathode (¶ [0528]-[0531]; Table 2 on page 83).
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 provide the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu in a device having the structure of Yoon’s Example 1, wherein the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu is used as the second dopant instead of Yoon’s compound 12-1, based on the teaching of Fleetham, Wang, Lu, and Yoon. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an OLED with improved device performance and high external quantum efficiency, as taught by Fleetham and Wang, and to provide a device with low driving voltage, excellent external quantum efficiency, and improved lifespan characteristics, as taught by Yoon.
The resulting emission layer comprises a host of mCBP (second compound), a first dopant of compound 40-1 (fourth compound), and a second dopant of the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu (first compound).
mCBP is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 2 (see structure on page 83 of Yoon).
mCBP:
PNG
media_image11.png
138
254
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image12.png
186
275
media_image12.png
Greyscale
mCBP reads on the claimed Formula 2 wherein:
L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms;
Ar1 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group of 13 ring-forming carbon atoms;
R8 and R9 are not required to be present; and
m1 and m2 are each 0.
Compound 40-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 4 (see structure on page 83 of Yoon).
40-1:
PNG
media_image13.png
209
215
media_image13.png
Greyscale
4:
PNG
media_image14.png
269
294
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Compound 40-1 reads on the claimed Formula 4 wherein:
Q1 to Q3 are each C and Q4 is N;
C1 is a 5-membered heterocycle, C2 is a 6-membered hydrocarbon ring, C3 is a 13-membered heterocycle, and C4 is a 6-membered heterocycle;
L21 and L23 are each a direct linkage and L22 is *-O-*;
b1 to b3 are each 1;
R21 includes two alkyl groups of 1 carbon atoms and a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, R22 and R24 are each an alkyl group of 4 carbon atoms, and R23 is not required to be present; and
d1 is 3, d2 and d4 are each 1, and d4 is 0.
Per claim 3, Hatakeyama teaches a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence (see Hatakeyama, ¶ [0046]). The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang reads on Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) wherein: rings A to C are each an aryl ring; Y1 represents B; X1 is N-R and X2 is Se; and R is an aryl group (see Hatakeyama, ¶ [0013]-[0021]). Thus, as evidenced by Hatakeyama, the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence. Accordingly, an emission layer comprising the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu emits delayed fluorescence.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Wang (English translation of CN 112645969 A obtained from Global Dossier), Lu (English translation of CN 113336782 A1 obtained from Global Dossier), and Yoon (US 2020/0308209 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1)
Regarding claims 5-6, Fleetham in view of Wang, Lu, and Yoon teach the device including an emission layer comprising a host of mCBP (second compound), a first dopant of compound 40-1 (fourth compound), and a second dopant of the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu (first compound), as described above with respect to claim 1.
Fleetham in view of Wang, Lu, and Yoon are silent as to a device comprising a second host having the structure of the claimed Formula 3 (third compound). However, Yoon teaches the emission layer may include a first host that is a hole transporting compound and a second host that is an electron transporting compound, wherein the first and second host form an exciplex (¶ [0123]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer including a host and a dopant, wherein the host is an exciplex that is a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host, and a dopant which includes both a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant (abstract). Such a device obtains high external quantum efficiency and high efficiency at high luminance (¶ [0023]). Kim teaches examples of the hole transporting host include mCBP and examples of the electron transporting host include B3PYMPM, among others (¶ [0051]-[0052]).
Therefore, as the device of Fleetham in view of Wang, Lu, and Yoon comprises a hole transporting host of mCBP, a phosphorescent dopant, and a fluorescent dopant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include in the emission layer an electron transporting host, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high external quantum efficiency and high efficiency at high luminance, 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 select B3PYMPM as the electron transporting host, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable electron transporting hosts taught by Kim, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the device of Fleetham in view of Wang, Lu, Yoon, and Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising electron transporting hosts 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).
B3PYMPM is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 3 (see structure on page 2 of Kim).
B3PYMPM:
PNG
media_image15.png
188
310
media_image15.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image16.png
144
202
media_image16.png
Greyscale
B3PYMPM reads on the claimed Formula 3 wherein:
Z1 and Z2 are each N and Z3 is CR13; and
R10 and R11 are each a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, R12 is an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom, and R13 is hydrogen.
The resulting device includes an emission layer comprising a first host of mCBP (second compound), a second host of B3PYMPM (third compound), a first dopant of compound 40-1 (fourth compound), . a second dopant of the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu (first compound)
Claims 4, 7-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Wang (English translation of CN 112645969 A obtained from Global Dossier), Lu (English translation of CN 113336782 A1 obtained from Global Dossier), and Yoon (US 2020/0308209 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 7-8, and 15, Fleetham in view of Wang, Lu, and Yoon teach the modified compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
154
181
media_image4.png
Greyscale
modified compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
394
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The modified compound fails to read on one of the claimed Formulas 1-1a to 1-1h as it does not comprise a substituent in the location of the claimed R1a to R4a. However, Fleetham does teach in Formula I that RA and RB may each be selected as an aryl substituent and examples thereof include unsubstituted phenyl, as shown by the structure of R18 (¶ [0007]; page 15).
Like Fleetham, Hatakeyama teaches polycyclic aromatic compounds represented by general formula (1) for use as a material in an organic electroluminescent element, wherein rings A to C may be substituted (abstract; ¶ [0013]). Examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) include compound 1-151, which comprises an unsubstituted phenyl group on each of rings B and C in the meta-positions with respect to the C-B bonds (page 4).
general formula (1):
PNG
media_image17.png
152
155
media_image17.png
Greyscale
1-151:
PNG
media_image18.png
201
142
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Fleetham, 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 hydrogen with unsubstituted phenyl in the locations of RA and RB in the meta-positions with respect to the C-B bonds (as shown in Hatakeyama’s 1-151), because Fleetham teaches unsubstituted phenyl may be selected as RA and RB. 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 OLED of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu and possess the benefits taught by Fleetham and Wang. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
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 specifically select phenyl, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable group which may be selected for RA and RB, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the device of Fleetham in view of Wang, Lu, and Hatakeyama and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham, Wang, Lu, and Hatakeyama . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Fleetham’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Fleetham in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting modified compound reads on the claimed Formula 1-1a wherein: R1a and R2a are each an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl) (claims 7-8).
Additionally, the resulting modified compound reads on the claimed compound 66 (claim 15).
Per claim 4, Yoon teaches the emission layer may emit light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of 420 nm to 470 nm (¶ [0119]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the pertinent art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, while Fleetham in view of Wang, Lu, Yoon, and Hatakeyama appear silent with respect to the property of the emission layer emitting light having a central wavelength of about 430 nm to about 490 nm, the instant specification recites examples of devices comprising compounds represented by the instant Formula 1. In these devices, the emission layer emits at wavelengths within the range of about 430 nm to about 490 nm (see instant Table 3 on pages 132-133). Since Fleetham in view of Wang, Yoon, and Hatakeyama teach the modified compound, which is identical to the instant compound 66 and is substantially similar in structure to the compounds used in the device examples (instant Compounds 2, 36, 50, 87, and 112-115), as shown in the structures on instant page 127, and since the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang, Lu, Yoon, and Hatakeyama reads on the instant Formula 1, the property of the emission layer emitting light having a central wavelength of about 430 nm to about 490 nm, is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Wang (English translation of CN 112645969 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Lu (English translation of CN 113336782 A1 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Fleetham teaches an OLED comprising an anode, a cathode, and an emission layer therebetween, wherein the emission layer further comprises a compound of Formula I as a host or emitter (¶ [0074-[0076]). The compound represented by Formula I provides the OLED with improved device performance (abstract; ¶ [0006]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula I include the compound below on page 26.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
154
181
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fleetham’s compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
190
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fleetham’s compound fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it does not comprise S, Se, or Te in the location of the claimed Y. However, in Formula I, Fleetham teaches Y1 may be selected as O, S, Se, BR, NR, PR, CRR’, SRR’, or GeRR’ (¶ [0007]).
Wang teaches a compound represented by formula (I) which comprises boron, nitrogen, and selenium or tellurium in the location of X (beginning of page 2). The compound represented by formula (I) is used as a light-emitting material in an organic light-emitting device and by including selenium or tellurium, the compound obtains narrow half-peak width and provides the device with high external quantum efficiency (end of page 2 to beginning of page 3). Examples of compounds represented by formula (I) include compound a1-1 (page 23).
Formula (I):
PNG
media_image5.png
292
269
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a1-1:
PNG
media_image6.png
109
151
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in Fleetham’s compound, 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 O with Se as shown in Wang’s a1-1, to arrive at a compound represented by Wang’s formula (I) based on the teaching of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound that obtains narrow half-peak width and a device with high external quantum efficiency, as taught by Wang.
The modified compound fails to comprise a substituent in the location of the claimed R7. However, Fleetham does teach in Formula I that RC may be selected as an aryl substituent (¶ [0007]).
Lu teaches a three-coordinated boron light-emitting compound wherein a large steric hindrance group is provided on the periphery of the entire molecular skeleton (beginning of page 2). The large steric hindrance group alleviates the problem of efficiency roll-off and provides a compound with a narrow spectrum and a device with high efficiency under brightness (beginning of page 2). Examples of the large steric hindrance group include terphenyl, as shown in compound BN-1 (page 3).
BN-1:
PNG
media_image8.png
198
226
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang, 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 a terphenyl group in the location of RC in the para-position with respect to the C-B bond as shown in Lu’s BN-1, to arrive at a compound containing a large steric hindrance group based on the teaching of Lu. The motivation for doing so would have been to alleviate the problem of efficiency roll-off, and provide a compound with a narrow spectrum and a device with high efficiency under brightness, as taught by Lu.
The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu reads on Wang’s formula (I) wherein: a is 0; X is Se; Y is not required to be present; Ar1 to Ar3 are each an unsubstituted six-membered aromatic ring; Ra is a substituted C6 aromatic group, Rb and Rc are each not required to be present, and Rd is an unsubstituted C18 aromatic group; and m, n, and p are each 0 (see Wang, pages 3-4). Accordingly, the modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu is expected to obtain the benefits of Wang.
The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
394
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image10.png
210
279
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modified compound of Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
Y is Se;
R1 to R6 are each hydrogen and R7 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; and
n1 and n2 are each 4, n3 is 2, n4 and n6 are each 5, and n5 is 3.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham (US 2021/0066616 A1) in view of Wang (English translation of CN 112645969 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Lu (English translation of CN 113336782 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claims 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 19-20, Fleetham in view of Wang and Lu teach the modified compound as described above with respect to claims 16 and 18.
Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
154
181
media_image4.png
Greyscale
modified compound:
PNG
media_image9.png
394
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The modified compound fails to read on one of the claimed Formulas 1-1a to 1-1h as it does not comprise a substituent in the location of the claimed R1a to R4a. However, Fleetham does teach in Formula I that RA and RB may each be selected as an aryl substituent and examples thereof include unsubstituted phenyl, as shown by the structure of R18 (¶ [0007]; page 15).
Like Fleetham, Hatakeyama teaches polycyclic aromatic compounds represented by general formula (1) for use as a material in an organic electroluminescent element, wherein rings A to C may be substituted (abstract; ¶ [0013]). Examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) include compound 1-151, which comprises an unsubstituted phenyl group on each of rings B and C in the meta-positions with respect to the C-B bonds (page 4).
general formula (1):
PNG
media_image17.png
152
155
media_image17.png
Greyscale
1-151:
PNG
media_image18.png
201
142
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Fleetham, 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 hydrogen with unsubstituted phenyl in the locations of RA and RB in the meta-positions with respect to the C-B bonds (as shown in Hatakeyama’s 1-151), because Fleetham teaches unsubstituted phenyl may be selected as RA and RB. 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 OLED of Fleetham in view of Wang and possess the benefits taught by Fleetham and Wang. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
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 specifically select phenyl, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable group which may be selected for RA and RB, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the device of Fleetham in view of Wang and Hatakeyama and possessing the benefits taught by Fleetham, Wang, and Hatakeyama . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Fleetham’s Formula I having the benefits taught by Fleetham in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting modified compound reads on the claimed Formula 1-1a.
Additionally, the resulting modified compound reads on the claimed compound 66 (claim 20).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights