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 .
Election/Restrictions
In a requirement for restriction dated 05/15/2026, Applicant was required to choose from
Group I, claims 1-13 and 15-20, drawn to a compound of Formula I, classified in H10K 85/6572
Group II, claim 14, drawn to a compound of Formula VI, classified in C07F 7/0814.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
In a requirement for election of species dated 05/15/2026, Applicant was required to choose from
Species I: X1 and X2 are each a carbon atom,
Species II: at least one of X1 and X2 is a nitrogen atom
Wherein an additional election must be made between the following subspecies:
Subspecies a: RD and RE are each a carbocyclic ring
Subspecies b: At least one of RD and RE is a heterocyclic ring
Subspecies c: At least one of RD and RE is something other than a carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I, and Subspecies a, in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/29/2023, 03/29/2023, and 06/30/2023 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 03/29/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The bonds in the following chemical structure, as given in paragraph [0172] of the instant specification, are illegible due to poor resolution. Please correct these structures so all bonds are clearly visible. See the excerpt below which was taken from the PG Pub of the instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are clear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing the size of the structure and/or font, or by making the bond lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation RD’ in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In continuing examination, this is being interpreted as referring to RD.
With respect to claim 15, the claim contains the limitation that the emissive layer further comprises a second host and/or the second host comprises a triazine or a boryl moiety. This limitation is unclear because it allows for a situation wherein the second host is not present, but a second host comprising a triazine or a boryl moiety is required. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
In continuing examination, the claim is being interpreted as requiring a second host material which comprises a triazine or a boryl moiety.
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 1-5, 7-11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Um et al. (US 2022/0112163 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-10, Um discloses a compound of Formula I (paragraph 0007), such as compound 79 (page 23), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
382
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula I when moieties A and B are both a 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), X1 and X2 are both carbon atoms, RA and RB represent no substitution, RC represents monosubstitution of an aryl (phenyl) group, m is 1 and RD and RE are both aryl (phenyl) groups of which RD comprises a silyl (Si(Ph)3) group, RD and RE are fused to form a 9-carbazolyl moiety, n is 0 and RF is not present, and RX is an aryl (phenyl) group.
With respect to claim 3, Um teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the structure of instant Formula II, for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 7, Um teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Um also discloses compound 56 (page 19), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
426
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements the instant claim and of parent Formula I when moieties A and B are both a 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), X1 and X2 are both carbon atoms, RA and RB represent no substitution, RC represents monosubstitution of an aryl (phenyl) group, m is 1 and RD and RE are both aryl (phenyl) groups, RD and RE are fused to form a 9-carbazolyl moiety, n is 0 and RF is not present, and RX is an arylene (phenylene) group which comprises a silyl (Si(Ph)3) group.
With respect to claim 11, Um teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the structure of the first formula on the third row of page 129 of the instant claims.
With respect to claim 13, Um teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is identical to the second compound on the second row of page 155 of the instant claims.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Um teaches the compound of claim 1, and Um also teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode (ITO/Ag/ITO), a cathode (LiF/Al) and an organic layer between the anode and cathode including an emission layer wherein Compound 80, which is pictured below, is used as a host for a phosphorescent dopant (Ir(pmp)3) (paragraphs 0413 and 0410-0412, see also Example 7 in Table 2 on page 95).
PNG
media_image4.png
484
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that this compound meets the requirements of parent Formula I for the same reasons discussed above regarding compound 79.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 6, 12, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um et al. (US 2022/0112163 A1) as applied above.
With respect to claim 6, Um teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound 79, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Um Formula I (paragraphs 0042 and 0102), when Ar3 is represented by Formula 3B-1 (paragraph 0049, see also Condition 4 in paragraph 0068).
In Formula 3B-1, Um also teaches that A1 is a carbazolyl group (paragraph 0084, lines 6-7, see also compounds 69-73 on page 22 to further obviousness support).
Um includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Um being a lack of the aforementioned carbazole substituent being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound wherein the d-orbital and pi-conjugation system of the compound interact with each other to stabilize the energy level of the compound, preventing or reducing T1 quenching, resulting in a light emitting device with low driving voltage, excellent light efficient, and long lifespan (paragraph 0104), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 12, Um teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound 79, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Um Formula I (paragraphs 0042 and 0102), when Ar3 is represented by Formula 3B-1 (paragraph 0049, see also Condition 4 in paragraph 0068).
Um also teaches that Ar3 may be represented by Formula 3A-1 (paragraph 0049), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
188
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In this formula, CY1 is a C6 carbocyclic (benzene) group, which is substituted with -Si(Q51)(Q52)(Q53), wherein each Q is a C6 carbocyclic (phenyl) group (paragraph 0014).
Such a modification produces instant Compound 1-(R9)(R1)(R1)(R1).
Um includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Um being a lack of the aforementioned silicon atom being explicitly stated (see compound 60 on page 20). Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound wherein the d-orbital and pi-conjugation system of the compound interact with each other to stabilize the energy level of the compound, preventing or reducing T1 quenching, resulting in a light emitting device with low driving voltage, excellent light efficient, and long lifespan (paragraph 0104), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 17, Um teaches the OLED of claim 15, as discussed above.
Um also teaches that the emission layer may further comprise a second host, which may be a thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) compound (paragraph 0243), such as DF5 (PIC-TRZ) (page 71), which comprises a triazine moiety. Um teaches that including a TADF compound improves the efficiency of the light emitting device comprising the compound (paragraph 0244)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a TADF compound as a second host material in the emission layer in order to further improve the efficiency of the light emitting device comprising the compound, as taught by Um.
With respect to claim 19, Um teaches the OLED of claim 15, as discussed above.
Um also teaches compound 57 (page 20), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
560
634
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of parent Formula I when moieties A and B are both a 6-membered carbocyclic ring (benzene), X1 and X2 are both carbon atoms, RA and RB represent no substitution, RC represents monosubstitution of an aryl (d6-phenyl) group, m is 1 and RD and RE are both aryl (phenyl) groups, RD and RE are fused to form a 9-carbazolyl moiety, n is 0 and RF is not present, and RX is an arylene (phenylene) group which comprises a silyl (Si(Ph)3) group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a partially deuterated derivative compound, such as compound 57, as the host material of an OLED in order to obtain a light emitting device with low driving voltage, excellent light efficient, and long lifespan (paragraph 0104), as taught by Um.
With respect to claim 20, Um teaches the compound of claim 1, and Um also teaches that the compound may be applied to various electronic apparatuses including consumer products such as a personal computer (paragraph 0330, line 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound in a consumer product such as a personal computer, as taught by Um.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um et al. (US 2022/0112163 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2020/0006676 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Um teaches the OLED of claim 15, as discussed above.
However, Um does not teach nor fairly suggest that the emitting layer further comprises a sensitizer.
With respect to the difference, Kwak discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer which has a host, dopant, and sensitizer (abstract).
Kwak teaches that when a sensitizer is used in combination with a host and dopant, the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light-emitting device may be improved because it has excellent characteristics in terms of exciton transfer to the dopant (paragraph 0339).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sensitizer of Kwak in the emission layer of Um in order to facilitate transfer of excitons to the dopant and obtain an organic light-emitting device with improved lifespan and efficiency, as taught by Kwak.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2020/0044168 A1) – teaches relevant silyl-substituted carbazole derivatives.
Jung et al. (US 2015/0171342 A1) – teaches relevant bicarbazole compounds.
Lv et al. (CN 108727424 A) – teaches relevant silyl-substituted indolocarbazoles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights