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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The restriction/election requirement which was mailed on 3/23/26 has been withdrawn. The application has also been transferred to the undersigned Examiner. All claims and species are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 are objected. In these claims, all instances of “above” as it pertains to the various formulae should be removed for better clarity. For instance, claim 19 recites “Formula 1 above” but there are two instances of Formula 1 above.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites that Ar3 is a heteroaryl group which contains a heteroatom such as O, S, or N. The language “such as” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it raises a question to whether or not limitations following the phrase “such as” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (WO 2021/199948, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement filed on 12/30/25). The English language equivalent US 2023/0134165, also cited on the 12/30/25 IDS, is relied upon for citation purposes.
Claim 17: Saito et al. teaches compound F9 which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
194
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 103). This compound anticipates Formula 1 of claim 17. As applied to Formula 1, compound F9 has X1 and X2 equal to NRa with Ra being a substituted phenyl group (2,6-dimethylphenyl), R1, R3, R4, R6-R9, and R11 equal to hydrogen atoms, R2 equal to t-butyl, R5 and R10 equal to Formula 2 with L1 equal to an unsubstituted p-phenylene group, and Ar1 and Ar2 equal to a p-t-butylphenyl group.
Claim 18: The 2,6-dimethylphenyl groups as Ra above also satisfy Formula 4 with R12 and R16 equal to methyl and R13-R15 equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 19: Compound F9 above also anticipates Formula 1-1 of claim 19 with all variable assignments being described in claim 17 above.
Claim 1: The rejection regarding the first compound of claim 17 is wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 1. Device example BD13 is drawn to a light-emitting element comprising an anode, a hole transport region, an emission region comprising compound F9 as a delayed fluorescent dopant, a phosphorescent iridium complex, and a host compound, an electron transporting region, and a cathode. Compound F9 anticipates Formula 1 as described in claim 17 above and compound H1 is a host compound which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
110
180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 92). Compound HT satisfies Formula HT of claim 1. As applied to Formula HT, compound HT has e and f equal to zero, L1a equal to a direct linkage, and Ar1a equal to a substituted C12 heteroaryl group (a carbazole-substituted dibenzothiophene). Alternatively, L1a is equal to a dibenzothiophene group and Ar1a is equal to an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group (carbazolyl).
Claim 2: As recited in claim 18 above, the 2,6-dimethylphenyl groups as Ra anticipate Formula 4 of claim 2.
Claim 4: In compound F9, R1 and R3 are hydrogen atoms and R2 is a t-butyl group, thereby anticipating claim 4.
Claim 5: As recited in claim 19 above, compound F9 anticipates Formula 1-1 of claim 5.
Claim 6, 9, 10, and 12: Claims 6, 9, 10, and 12 serve to further limit the embodiment where R5 and R10 are represented by Formula 3 which is not required. As such, claims 6, 9, 10, and 12 further limits an optional embodiment. For this reason, these claims may be rejected by Saito et al.
Claim 8: In compound F9, both X1 and X2 are NRa groups, thereby anticipating claim 8.
Claim 11: In compound F9, Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-1 with L1 equal to a p-phenylene group and m1 and m2 equal to zero.
Claim 13: Compound F9 is employed in the emission layer as a delayed fluorescent emitter and the emission layer therefore emits delayed fluorescence which anticipates claim 13.
Claim 14: Device example BD13 comprises a first compound satisfying claim 1 and a second compound satisfying claim 1, thereby anticipating claim 14.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuwabara et al. (US 2021/0143331).
Claims 17-19: Kuwabara et al. teaches compound 36 which has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
204
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 17). This compound anticipates Formula 1 of claim 17. As applied to Formula 1, compound 36 has X1 and X2 equal to NRa with Ra equal to phenyl, R1, R3, R4, R6-R9, and R11 equal to hydrogen atoms, R2 equal to diphenylamine, R5 equal to Formula 2 with L1 equal to a direct linkage, Ar1 and Ar2 equal to phenyl, and R10 is equal to Formula 3 with L2 equal to a direct linkage and Ar3 equal to a phenyl-substituted C24 heteroaryl group, which is shown as
PNG
media_image4.png
276
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. In compound 36 all of R12-R16 are hydrogen atoms which satisfies claim 18. Compound 36 also anticipates Formula 1-1 of claim 19 with all variable assignments being described above.
Claim 1: The rejection regarding the first compound of claim 17 is wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 1. Kuwabara et al. teaches that the inventive compounds taught therein, which includes compound 36, are employed as thermally activated delayed fluorescent materials in an emission layer of an organic electroluminescent device. The working examples teach that the device comprises an anode, a hole transport region, an emission layer comprising one of the TADF dopants taught therein and a host material (mCBP), an electron transport region, and a cathode (paragraphs 0198-0200 and Table 1). The employment of any one of the explicitly taught TADF dopants, including compound 36, in the manner taught in the device examples of Kuwabara et al. is at once envisaged. The host material mCBP is a well-known host material which has the structure
PNG
media_image5.png
84
108
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. This compound anticipates Formula HT of claim 1. As applied to Formula HT, mCBP has variables e and f equal to zero, L1a equal to biphenylene, and Ar1a is equal to carbazole.
Claim 2: As recited in claim 18 above, the phenyl groups as Ra anticipate Formula 4 of claim 2.
Claim 3: The unsubstituted phenyl groups as Ra in compound 36 also anticipates the limitation of claim 3 with all R12-R16 equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 5: As recited in claim 19 above, compound 36 anticipates Formula 1-1 of claim 5.
Claim 6: In compound 36, variable Ar3 is a substituted C24 heteroaryl group containing N atoms as ring forming atoms, thereby satisfying claim 6.
Claim 8: In compound F9, both X1 and X2 are NRa groups, thereby anticipating claim 8.
Claims 9 and 10: Claims 9 and 10 serve to further limit the embodiment where R5 and R10 are represented by Formula 3 which is not required. As such, claims 9 and 10 further limits an optional embodiment. For this reason, these claims may be rejected by Kuwabara et al.
Claim 11: In compound 38, variable R5 is an unsubstituted diphenylamine group which anticipates Formula 2-1 of claim 11.
Claim 13: Compound 38 is employed in the emission layer as a delayed fluorescent emitter and the emission layer therefore emits delayed fluorescence which anticipates claim 13.
Claim 14: Device examples prepared according to Kuwabara et al. which comprise compound 38 as the TADF dopant and mCPB as the host material anticipates claim 14.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (WO 2021/199948), as applied to claims 1 and 14.
The device embodiments taught by Saito et al. include those where a first compound and a second compound which satisfy claim 1 are employed in the emission layer as described above. While the device examples employ a phosphorescent co-dopant which is an iridium complex as a third compound in the emission layer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected any one of the explicitly taught phosphorescent co-dopants of Saito et al., including Pt-100 through Pt-104 and the platinum complexes taught on pages 43 and 49. The motivation to employ such complexes stems from the teaching that they are suitable co-dopants in the invention described therein. Employing one of the Pt-complexes as the phosphorescent co-dopant in the examples of Saito et al. affords an embodiment where the emission layer comprises a first compound, a second compound, and a fourth compound which satisfies claim 1. For example, Pt-100 satisfies Formula D-1 of claim 1. As applied to Formula D-1, Pt-100 has e1 and e3 equal to 1, e2 and e4 equal to zero, L21 and L23 equal to single bonds, Q1 and Q2 equal to N, Q3 and Q4 equal to C, C1 and C4 equal to 5-membered heterocyclic rings, C2 and C3 equal to 6-membered aromatic rings, d2 and d3 equal to zero, d1 and d4 equal to 2, and R31 and R34 equal to substituted aryl groups.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/111,495 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 12 of the reference application claims many boron-based compounds which satisfy all of the limitations of Formula 1 of claim 1. Claim 12 also requires at least one or more of a compound represented by Formula HT, a compound represented by Formula ET, and a compound represented by Formula D-1. Compound 4 or compound 93 in claim 12 of the reference application collectively satisfies all of the structural and device limitations of claims 1-15 and the structural limitations of claims 17-19.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 20 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 prior art does not teach or otherwise suggest the boron-based compounds recited in claims 16 and 20. Additionally, claim 7 is not subject to any prior art rejections. Kuwabara et al. teaches boron-based compounds where one of R5 or R10 is represented by Formula 2 and the other is represented by Formula 3 as required by claim 7, but such compounds do not satisfy all of the structural limitations of claim 7.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights