DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 6/5/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 6/5/2026. In particular, original Claims 1, 14, and 18 have been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the phrase “at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 27 recites the phrase “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 28 recites the phrase “at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, and Z3”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, or Z3”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 22 and 25 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “FG comprises azaadamantane” which fails to limit the scope of the parent claim for the following reasons. Claim 22 ultimately depends from claim 18, and claim 18 recites that at least one of Z1 to Z3 is selected from Formulas 2-1 to 2-4 and 2-1a to 2-4a:
PNG
media_image1.png
482
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, claim 18 requires that at least one of Z1 to Z3 is represented by one of the above formulas, including Formula 2-1, which encompasses azaadamantane. However, claim 22 recites the transition phrase “comprising” and therefore the azaadamantane is open the inclusion of additional chemical groups or species which are necessarily excluded by Formula 2-1 in claim 18.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “FG comprises azaadamantane” which fails to limit the scope of the parent claim for the following reasons. Claim 25 ultimately depends from claim 18, and claim 18 recites that at least one of Z1 to Z3 is selected from Formulas 2-1 to 2-4 and 2-1a to 2-4a:
PNG
media_image1.png
482
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, claim 18 requires that at least one of Z1 to Z3 is represented by one of the above formulas, including Formula 2-1, which encompasses azaadamantane. However, claim 22 recites the transition phrase “comprising” and therefore the azaadamantane is open the inclusion of additional chemical groups or species which are necessarily excluded by Formula 2-1 in claim 18.
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.
In order to overcome the3 35 U.S.C. 112 (d) rejections set forth above, it is suggested that claims 22 and 25 could be amended to recite “wherein FG is represented by Formula 2-1 or 2-1a” or wherein FG is represented by Formula 2-1 or 2-1a, where Rp is hydrogen”.
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, 3-4, 7, 9, 12, 14-18, 20-22, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 2020/0335705) in view of Takada et al (US 2019/0097157).
Regarding claim 1, Song et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer comprising a light emitting layer disposed between the first and second electrodes (Abstract).
The light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0050], and Page 72 - Compound 2-1):
PNG
media_image2.png
301
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited first compound represented by Formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
206
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where:
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
Z1, Z2, and Z3 are hydrogen;
n1, n2, and n3 are zero (0); and
n1 + n2 + n3 is zero (0).
The reference further discloses that one or more layers of the organic material layer comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0049] – Compound 1-1):
PNG
media_image4.png
326
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound encompassed by Formula HT-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
128
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where:
a4 is eight (8);
R10 is hydrogen; and
R9 is a substituted C6 aryl group.
Given that the reference discloses that one or more layers of the organic material layer comprise the disclosed compound, it is clear that the light emitting layer can comprise the above compound.
While the reference discloses a general formula for Compound 2-1 ([0012] - General Formula 2):
PNG
media_image6.png
228
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 to R12 can be a heteroalkyl ([0016]), the reference does not disclose that one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
recited in the present claims.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). Accordingly, the reference discloses Formula 2-1 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where Rp is hydrogen and the integer p is four (4).
The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Song et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Song et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the heteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al such that one of Z1 to Z3 in Formula 1-1 of the claims corresponds to Formula 2-1 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
218
260
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
186
248
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where FG corresponds Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Takada et al discloses the poly cyclic group:
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is hydrogen, corresponding to Formula 2-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Song et al discloses that in the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
228
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
R3 to R12 can be deuterium ([0016]).
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach Compound 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image11.png
198
188
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 14, Song et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer comprising a light emitting layer, i.e. a functional layer, disposed between the first and second electrodes (Abstract). The light emitting layer comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0050], and Page 72 Compound 2-1):
PNG
media_image2.png
301
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited first compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
206
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where:
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
Z1, Z2, and Z3 are hydrogen;
n1, n2, and n3 are zero (0); and
n1 + n2 + n3 is zero (0).
While the reference discloses a general formula for Compound 2-1 ([0012] - General Formula 2):
PNG
media_image6.png
228
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 to R12 can be a heteroalkyl ([0016]), the reference does not disclose that one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
of the present claims.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). Accordingly, the reference discloses Formula 2-1 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where Rp is hydrogen and the integer p is four (4).
The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Song et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Song et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the heteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al such that one of Z1 to Z3 in Formula 1-1 of the claims corresponds to Formula 2-1 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Song et al discloses the organic light emitting device as ([0059] – Figure 1):
PNG
media_image12.png
252
671
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises: a light emitting layer (133); a hole transport layer (132) and hole injection layer (131), i.e. a hole transport region; and an electron transport layer (134), i.e. an electron transport region. The electron transport layer (134) is between the light emitting layer (133) and the cathode (120); and the hole transport (132) and hole injection (131) layers are between the light emitting layer (133) and the anode (110).
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
218
260
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a and R1b are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Takada et al discloses the poly cyclic group:
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is hydrogen, corresponding to Formula 2-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 18, Song et al discloses the following compound (Abstract, [0050], and Page 72 Compound 2-1):
PNG
media_image2.png
301
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited first compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
206
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where:
X1 and X2 are N-R1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
Z1, Z2, and Z3 are hydrogen;
n1, n2, and n3 are zero (0); and
n1 + n2 + n3 is zero (0).
While the reference discloses a general formula for the compound ([0012])- General Formula 2):
PNG
media_image6.png
228
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 to R12 can be a heteroalkyl ([0016]), the reference does not disclose that one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
of the present claim.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). Accordingly, the reference discloses Formula 2-1 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where Rp is hydrogen and the integer p is four (4).
The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Song et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Song et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the heteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Song et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
218
260
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a and R1b are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the first compound corresponds to Formula 1-1b of the claims:
PNG
media_image10.png
186
248
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where FG corresponds Formula 2-1.
Regarding claim 22, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, FG corresponds to azaadamantane
Regarding claim 26, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 27, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Takada et al discloses the poly cyclic group:
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 is hydrogen, corresponding to Formula 2-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 28, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Song et al discloses that in the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
228
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R3 to R12 can be deuterium ([0016]).
Regarding claim 29, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosures of Song et al and Takada et al teach Compound 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image11.png
198
188
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16-18, 23-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al (US 2022/0149294) in view of Takada et al (US 2019/0097157).
Regarding claim 1, Fleetham et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a light emitting element, comprising an anode and a cathode, i.e. first and second electrodes, and a light emitting layer or emissive region, disposed between the anode and cathode (Abstract and [0006]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0099]-[0110] and [0107]):
PNG
media_image13.png
222
404
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound represented by Formula HT-1:
PNG
media_image5.png
128
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where:
a4 is eight (8);
R10 is hydrogen; and
R9 is a substituted C12 heteroaryl group.
The light emitting layer further comprises the following boron compound ([0006] and Page 10):
PNG
media_image14.png
283
379
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1-2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image15.png
190
278
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X4 are NR1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group;
Z1, Z2 and Z3 are hydrogen;
n12 and n22 are four (4); and.
n32 is three (3).
While the reference discloses a general formula for the boron compound ([0088]):
PNG
media_image16.png
230
348
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where RA, RC and RE (corresponding to Z1 to Z3 of the present claims) can be a heterocycloalkyl ([0077]), the reference does not disclose that one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
of the present claims.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Fleetham et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Fleetham et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the cycloheteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Fleetham et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach a compound encompassed by Formula 1-2a of the claims:
PNG
media_image17.png
308
426
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a, R1b, R1c, and R1d are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach a compound encompassed by Formula 1-2c of the claims:
PNG
media_image18.png
204
308
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where FG corresponds to Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Fleetham et al discloses that in the formula:
PNG
media_image16.png
230
348
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where RA, RC and RE ( corresponding to Z1 to Z3 of the present claims), can be a combination of an aryl group, e.g. a phenyl group and heterocycloalkyl ([0077] and [0042]). Accordingly, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al disclose a substituent encompassed by Formula 2-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image19.png
110
226
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Fleetham et al discloses that the light emitting layer can comprise another host compound such as (Page 23):
PNG
media_image20.png
323
330
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited third compound represented by Formula ET-1:
PNG
media_image21.png
194
254
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y3 are N;
L1 and L3 are direct bonds;
L2 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene; and
Ar1 to Ar3 are unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl groups.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Fleetham et al discloses that the light emitting layer can comprise another host compound such as (Page 23):
PNG
media_image22.png
366
328
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
identical to Compound ET2 of the present claims.
Regarding claim 14, Fleetham et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a light emitting element, comprising an anode and a cathode, i.e. first and second electrodes, and a light emitting layer or emissive region, i.e. a functional layer, disposed between the anode and cathode (Abstract and [0006]). The light emitting layer discloses the following compound ([0006] and Page 10):
PNG
media_image14.png
283
379
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compounds corresponds to Formula 1-2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image15.png
190
278
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X4 are NR1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group;
Z1, Z2 and Z3 are hydrogen.;
n12 and n22 are four (4); and.
n32 is three (3).
While the reference discloses a general formula for the compound ([0088]):
PNG
media_image16.png
230
348
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where RA, RC and RE (corresponding to Z1 to Z3 of the present claims) can be a heterocycloalkyl ([0077]), the reference does not disclose that one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
of the present claims.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Fleetham et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Fleetham et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the cycloheteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Fleetham et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach a compound encompassed by Formula 1-2a of the claims:
PNG
media_image17.png
308
426
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a, R1b, R1c, and R1d are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach a compound where one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 18, Fleetham et al discloses the following compound (Page 10):
PNG
media_image23.png
283
379
media_image23.png
Greyscale
.
This compounds corresponds to Formula 1-2a of the claims:
PNG
media_image17.png
308
426
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 to X4 are NR1, where R1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group;
Z1, Z2 and Z3 are hydrogen;
n12 and n22 are four (4); and.
n32 is three (3).
While the reference discloses a general formula for the compound ([0088]):
PNG
media_image16.png
230
348
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where RA, RC and RE (corresponding to Z1 to Z3 of the present claims) can be a heterocycloalkyl ([0077]), the reference does not disclose that one of Z1 to Z3 corresponds to Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
172
media_image7.png
Greyscale
of the present claims.
Takada et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic compound with the formula (Abstract, [0102], and [0012] – Formula 1-5):
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be hydrogen and Ar1 can be a polycyclic heteroaryl ([0007] and [0049]). The reference discloses that compound improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device ([0078]).
Given that both Fleetham et al and Takada et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices as well as polycyclic aromatic compounds, and given that Fleetham et al does not explicitly prohibit other substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the cycloheteroalkyl substituent as taught by Takada et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such substituents on the polycyclic aromatic compound disclosed by Fleetham et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach a compound encompassed by Formula 1-2a of the claims:
PNG
media_image17.png
308
426
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where R1a, R1b, R1c, and R1d are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
Regarding claim 24, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach a compound encompassed by Formula 1-2d of the claims:
PNG
media_image24.png
192
348
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
where FG is the nitrogen containing polycyclic group; and Z12 and Z12 are hydrogen;
Regarding claim 25, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, FG is azaadamantane.
Regarding claim 27, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Fleetham et al discloses that in the formula:
PNG
media_image16.png
230
348
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where RA, RC, and RE (corresponding to Z1 to Z3 of the present claims) can be a combination of an aryl group, e.g. a phenyl group and heterocycloalkyl ([0077] and [0042]). Accordingly, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al disclose a substituent encompassed by Formula 2-1a of the claims:
PNG
media_image19.png
110
226
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al (US 2022/0149294) and Takada et al (US 2019/0097157) as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16-18, 23-25 and 27, and in view of Ahn et al (EP 3544076).
The discussion with respect to Fleetham et al and Takada et al as set forth in Paragraph 23 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Fleetham et al and Takada et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Fleetham et al discloses that the emission layer can comprise a combination of host and dopant compounds, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises the second, third compounds, and fourth as required by the present claims.
Ahn et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound (Abstract). The first compound is exemplified as ([0067] – compound D4):
PNG
media_image25.png
184
304
media_image25.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited fourth compound represented by Formula M-b:
PNG
media_image26.png
376
378
media_image26.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Q1 is N;
Q2 is N;
Q3 is C;
Q4 is C;
C1 is a C5 heteroaryl group;
C2 and C3 are C12 heteroaryl groups;
C4 is a C5 heteroaryl group;
e1 to e3 are one (1);
e4 is zero (0);
L21 is a direct linkage;
L22 and L23 are -O-; and
d1 to d4 are zero (0).
The second compound is exemplified as (Page 57 – Compound ET27):
PNG
media_image27.png
266
308
media_image27.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited third compound represented by Formula ET-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image28.png
176
236
media_image28.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Y1 to Y3 are N;
b1 to b3 are one (1);
L1 and L2 are direct linkages;
L3 is a C6 arylene group;
Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted C10 aryl groups; and
Ar3 is an unsubstituted C9 heteroaryl group.
The third compound is exemplified as (Page 40 – Compound H3-1):
PNG
media_image29.png
132
216
media_image29.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the recited second compound encompassed by Formula HT-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
128
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where a4 is eight (8); R10 is hydrogen; and R9 is a substituted C6 aryl group.
The reference discloses that an organic light emitting device comprising these compound possess high luminescent efficiency and a long lifespan ([0004]).
Given that both Fleetham et al and Ahn et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising dopant and host compounds in the light emitting layer, and given that Fleetham et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compounds as taught by An et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Fleetham et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action, it is noted that while Applicants have amended claims 1, 14, and 18, to recite “at least one from among Z1, Z2, and Z3”, and claims 9 and 28 to recite “at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, and Z3”, it is noted that as set forth in the previous Office Action, it was suggested that claims 1, 14, and 18 be amended to recite the above variables properly in the alternative, i.e. “at least one from among Z1, Z2, or Z3” and “at least one from among R1, Z1, Z2, or Z3”. It is for this reason that the claim objections as set forth in the previous Office Action are maintained above.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C 102 rejections of the claims over Ukigai, Hatakeyama, and Fleetham, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over Ukigai et al and Hatakeyama in view of Ahn et al are withdrawn.
Applicants argue that the proposed modification of Song with Takada would render Song unsatisfactory for its intended purpose given that Takada et al discloses the saturated cycloamine:
PNG
media_image30.png
148
156
media_image30.png
Greyscale
,
for use in a hole transport layer of the organic electroluminescent device, while Song teaches the compound of Formula 2:
PNG
media_image31.png
232
240
media_image31.png
Greyscale
,
as a dopant in the light emitting layer. However, firstly while it is recognized that Paragraph [0078] of Takada et al discloses the cycloamine as being utilized in the hole transport layer, it is significant to note that this the section of the reference discloses the following:
“The polycyclic compound according to an embodiment may be used as a hole transport material for an organic electroluminescence device (emphasis added) to help improve emission efficiency and external quantum efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device.”
Paragraph [0078] does not require that the compound is necessarily present in the hole transport layer, but rather, discloses that the compound may present in the hole transport layer, thereby indicating that the compound can be present in other layers of the device. A further reading of the reference supports this conclusion and specific attention is directed to Paragraph [0102]:
“In an implementation, in case the hole transport layer HTL does not include the polycyclic compound, and the emission layer EML includes the polycyclic compound (emphasis added)…”
Thus, this section of the reference discloses an embodiment where the polycyclic compound is not present in the hole transport layer, but rather present in the EML or light emitting layer. Accordingly, it is the Office’s position that modifying Song et al to include the cycloamine as a substituent in light emitting layer dopant would not render the reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose given that Takada et al recognizes that the cycloamine compound can be present in the light emitting layer.
Applicants argue that modified Song, when studied as a whole, suggests that Takada's saturated cycloamine belongs in a hole transport layer rather than as a substituent for Song's dopant structure in the light-emitting layer. However, firstly as discussed above, Takada discloses that the cycloamine can utilized in the light emitting layer. Secondly, it is noted that in General Formula 2 of Song:
PNG
media_image6.png
228
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
R3 to R12 can be a heteroalkyl. Thus, the disclosure of the reference is such it is recognizes that General Formula 2 can possess heteroalkyl substituents. In other words, the reference does not exclude heteroalkyl substituents, including the saturated cycloamine substituent disclosed by Takada from being present, but rather, allows for such substituents to be present.
Applicants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art should recognize that the electron withdrawing and sterically bulky properties of the cycloamine as taught by Takada teach away from the electron donating and less sterically demanding alkyl and aryl substituents of Song's compound of Chemical Formula 2. However, firstly it is noted that as discussed above in General Formula 2 of Song:
PNG
media_image6.png
228
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
R3 to R12 can be a heteroalkyl. Thus, the disclosure of the reference is such that it recognizes that General Formula 2 can possess heteroalkyl substituents. In other words, the reference does not exclude or teach away from heteroalkyl substituents, including the saturated cycloamine substituent disclosed by Takada from being present.
Secondly, it is noted that Applicants have not proffered any evidence, i.e. data, that one of ordinary skill in the art should recognize that the electron withdrawing and sterically bulky properties of the cycloamine as taught by Takada effectively teach away from the electron donating and less sterically demanding alkyl and aryl substituents of Song's compound of Chemical Formula 2. To that end it is noted that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding electron withdrawing and sterically bulky properties of the cycloamine as taught by Takada teach away from the electron donating and less sterically demanding alkyl and aryl substituents of Song's compound of Chemical Formula 2 must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
Applicant further notes that claims 22 and 25-27 are separately rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Fleetham in view of Takada and this rejection fails for at least similar reasons. However, Applicants’ arguments regarding Takada et al are not found to be persuasive for the reasons set forth above, and are incorporated here by reference.
Regarding the rejection of the claims as being obvious over Fleetham in view of Takada, Applicants argue that the claims at issue do not merely require any heterocycloalkyl group in the abstract, and rather, claims 22 and 25 require that FG comprises azaadamantane; and claims 26 and 27 require the presently-recited Formula 2 limitations. However, firstly, regarding claims 22 and 25, it is noted that these claims raise issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 (d) for failing to limit the scope of the parent claims, see the discussion in Paragraphs 16-20 above. Secondly, it is noted that as set forth in the rejections above, the combination of Fleetham in view of Takada teach azaadamantane and not a generic heterocycloalkyl. Thirdly, it is noted that in rejections set forth above claims 26 and 27 are rejected from Song in view of Takada, and not Fleetham in view of Takada.
Applicants argue that Fleetham in view of Takada does not provide an apparent reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the specific azaadamantane/Formula 2 so as to arrive at the presently claimed combinations. However, as discussed above Fleetham discloses a general formula for the compound ([0088]):
PNG
media_image16.png
230
348
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
where RA, RC and RE (corresponding to Z1 to Z3 of the present claims) can be a heterocycloalkyl, while Takada et al discloses a polycyclic compound with the formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
154
152
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
improves emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device. Accordingly, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound disclosed by Fleetham to include the cycloamine substituent disclosed by Takada with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights