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 received on April 20, 2026. Claims 1-6 and 13-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0104681 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0058885 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment dated April 20, 2026.
The rejection of claims 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2020/0058885 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment dated April 20, 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/787,326 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘326 also recites boron and nitrogen containing heteroaromatic compounds according to Formula 1 in claim 1 where both the Ar1 and the Ar2 are a formula 2, which is spirobifluorene group. Each of CY1 to CY3 rings may be a benzene group per the instant formula 1 core. See at least specific #5 compound recited in ‘326:
PNG
media_image1.png
152
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Compounds recited within US ‘326 claims encompass compounds as instantly claimed. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the copending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to form compounds which are both disclosed by copending Application No. 18/787,326 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0104681 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0069182; listed on 12/31/2025 I.D.S.).
Regarding a device of independent claim 1, Kim et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising an emission layer with a first, second, third, and fourth compound (see abstract).
Kim et al. first compound is of Formula 1 per instant “second compound” (see par. 65, 69-190, 207, 210):
PNG
media_image2.png
128
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Kim et al. second compound is of Formula 10 per instant “third compound” (see par. 66, 69-190, 208, 210):
PNG
media_image3.png
154
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Kim et al. third compound is of Formula 3D complexed to a central metal such as Pt per instant “fourth compound” (see at least par. 68, 69-190, especially par. 86, and 209-210):
PNG
media_image4.png
148
338
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Per instant formula 1 of claims 1 and 14, Kim et al. fourth compound is a heteroaromatic compound of formula 4 comprising a boron X41 and nitrogen-containing core that may be substituted with groups such as aryl (par. 68, 98-99 and see Group IV beginning on page 23) where k41 can be zero,
PNG
media_image5.png
298
466
media_image5.png
Greyscale
but it is not seen where the heteroaromatic core compound nitrogens Y42 and Y43 as N(R45) are specifically shown to be substituted with aryls selected as spirobifluorene groups (per instant Formula 1 compounds).
In analogous art, Hatakeyama et al. teaches bridged heterocyclic compounds comprising boron and nitrogen as dopant for an EL device (see abstract; see Y1 as boron of par. 65 and X1/X2 as N-R in par. 66 and 87 with R as aryl). Hatakeyama et al. specifically teaches aryl groups (encompassing a bonding location at any bonding site of the aryl group) may include spiro-bonded fluorene groups (see Hatakeyama et al. par. 74 and see spibifluorene group as aryl within compound 1-254 on page 43).
With respect to claims 13 and 20, specific instant formula 1 compounds, a Kim et al. compound D-11 of formula 4 is the same as at least instant compound #27 where the aryl bonded to a nitrogen of the core group is selected as aryl group spirobifluorene as taught by Hatakeyama et al. in place of phenyl (see circled groups below) as the aryl of group N-R.
Kim D-11 on page 24 (annotated):
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image6.png
320
328
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Instant Compound #27 (shown in instant claims 13 and 20):
PNG
media_image7.png
154
178
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a boron-nitrogen derivative dopant including an aryl spirofluorene group as an aryl as taught by Hatakeyama et al. within a compound according to Kim et al. formula 4, because Kim et al. teaches aryl groups as suitable for groups upon nitrogens of a Formula 4 core. One would expect to achieve a boron-nitrogen derivative for an EL device as taught by Kim et al. and Hatakeyama et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a boron-nitrogen derivative dopant as taught by Kim et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. as an emitting dopant in a device structure according to Kim et al., because one would expect the Kim et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. compounds to be useful for the purpose of light emission in a Kim et al. device structure. One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising materials as taught by Kim et al. and Hatakeyama et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 14-19, the above described compound with respect to Kim et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. which is the same as instant #27 meets the requirements of an instant Formula 1 compound.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, primary reference Kim et al. teaches first, second, third and fourth compounds for an emission layer as discussed above (see abstract).
Regarding claim 9, note that primary reference Kim et al. teaches fourth compound boron-nitrogen derivative dopant may be a delayed fluorescence emitter within an emitting layer (see par. 216-217). Further, since a same compound is rendered obvious as instant #27 as discussed above, the properties of fluorescence are expected to be inherently the same.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. formula 4 compounds are described as emitting blue light (see par. 220). See also Kim et al. par. 313.
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. first and second compounds respectively correspond to instant second and third compounds as discussed above. Kim et al. teaches the amount of first compound in the emission layer may be 10 wt. to about 90 wt. percent of the total of the emission layer and the amount of second compound in the emission layer may be 10 wt. to about 90 wt. percent of the total of the emission layer (see par. 231-232). Accordingly, the first and second compounds may be selected in amounts the same as the range as recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. teaches a hole transport region of a device may include monoamino compounds per instant H-1 compounds of instant claim 12 (see par. 299).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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