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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/6/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of Ring A, Ring M, Ar1, and Ar1’. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of Ring A, Ring M, Ar1, or Ar1’ Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites the phrase “at least one of Ring A, Ring M, Ar1, and Ar1’. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of Ring A, Ring M, Ar1, or Ar1’ Appropriate correction is required
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites the phrase “at least one of Ring A, Ring M, Ar1, and Ar1’. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of Ring A, Ring M, Ar1, or Ar1’ Appropriate correction is required
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 2015/0236274).
Regarding claim 1, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
353
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where in order of stacking: layer 102 corresponds to the recited first electrode; the hole injection (103) and hole transport (104) layers correspond to the recited hole transport region; layer 105 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer; the electron transport (106) and electron injection (107) layers correspond to the recited electron transport region; and the negative electrode (108) corresponds to the recited second electrode ([0104]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following compound ([0118]-[0119] and [0013] – Formula (1)):
PNG
media_image2.png
277
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A is an aryl ring such as a benzene ring ([0059]-[0060]); ring B is a heteroaryl ring such as a benzofuran ring ([0061]-[0062]); ring C is an aryl ring such as a benzene ring ([0059]-[0060]); Y1 is boron ([0015]); and X1 and X2 are N-R, where R is an aryl such as benzene ([0016] and [0071]). The reference further discloses that at least one hydrogen atom in rings A, B, and C may be substituted with a primary substituent ([0014]); and that the aryl groups in the moiety N-R may also be substituted with secondary substituents ([0016]). As the primary substituent for rings A, B, and C, the reference discloses alkyls such as tert-butyl ([0059]-[0065]). The R, in N-R can be substituted with secondary substituents such as alkyls, e.g. tert-butyl ([0071], [0068], and [0065]).
This compound corresponds to the polycyclic compound represented by Formula 4:
PNG
media_image3.png
264
255
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where Ar1 and Ar1’ are phenyl groups, i.e. C6 aryl groups; ring B is a benzene ring; i.e. a C6 aryl; and Z is B. Ring M is a benzene ring, i.e. C6 aryl. Ring A is a benzofuran ring and corresponds to Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
165
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where X is a direct bond; Y is O; and R1 and R2 combine to form a benzene ring, i.e. an aromatic ring. Accordingly, ring A is a benzofuran ring and ring M is not a furan, a thiophene, a benzofuran or a benzothiophene as required by the present claims. Furthermore, from the discussion above, Rings A,B, and M, and the groups Ar1 and Ar1’ are substituted with a tert-butyl group as recited in the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the compound is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence compound ([0046]). Given that the compound is utilized in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device ([0118]-[0119]), it is clear that the light emitting layer is necessarily configured to emit delayed fluorescence as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 3, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the compound is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence compound ([0046]). Given that the compound is utilized in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device ([0118]-[0119]), it is clear that the light emitting layer is necessarily a thermally activated delayed fluorescence emission layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 4, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The reference does not explicitly disclose that the emission layer is configured to emit blue light. However, given that the reference discloses an emission layer comprising a compound encompassed by the present claims, it is the Office’s position that the light emitting layer disclosed by the reference necessarily emits blue light.
The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. emission of blue light, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 5, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Z is B.
Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the positive and negative electrodes, i.e. the recited first and second electrodes, are silver (Ag) or gold (Au) ([0110] and [0258]).
Regarding claim 7, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image1.png
353
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 103 is the hole injection layer on the first electrode (102) and layer 104 is the hole transport layer on the hole injection layer (103).
Regarding claim 8, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the hole injection layer has a thickness of 10 nm, i.e. 100 Å, within the recited range of about 30 to about 1,000 Å (Page 181 – Table 2). The hole transport layer has a thickness of 30 nm, i.e. 300 Å, within the recited range of about 10 to about 1,000 Å (Page 181 – Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image1.png
353
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 106 is the electron transport layer on the light emitting layer (105) and layer 107 is the electron injection layer on the electron transport layer (106).
Regarding claim 11, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that light emitting layer has a thickness of 30 nm, i.e. 300 Å, within the recited range of about 100 to about 600 Å (Page 181 – Table 2).
Regarding claim 12, Hatakeyama discloses the following compound ([0013] – Formula (1)):
PNG
media_image2.png
277
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A is an aryl ring such as a benzene ring ([0059]-[0060]); ring B is a heteroaryl ring such as a benzofuran ring ([0061]-[0062]); ring C is an aryl ring such as a benzene ring ([0059]-[0060]); Y1 is boron ([0015]); and X1 and X2 are N-R, where R is an aryl such as benzene ([0016] and [0071]). The reference further discloses that at least one hydrogen atom in rings A, B, and C may be substituted with a primary substituent ([0014]); and that the aryl groups in the moiety N-R may also be substituted with secondary substituents ([0016]). As the primary substituent for rings A, B, and C, the reference discloses alkyls such as tert-butyl ([0059]-[0065]). The R, in N-R can be substituted with secondary substituents such as alkyls, e.g. tert-butyl ([0071], [0068], and [0065]).
This compound corresponds to the polycyclic compound represented by Formula 4:
PNG
media_image3.png
264
255
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where Ar1 and Ar1’ are phenyl groups, i.e. C6 aryl groups; ring B is a benzene ring; i.e. a C6 aryl; and Z is B. Ring M is a benzene ring, i.e. C6 aryl. Ring A is a benzofuran ring and corresponds to Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
165
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where X is a direct bond; Y is O; and R1 and R2 combine to form a benzene ring, i.e. an aromatic ring. Accordingly, ring A is a benzofuran ring and ring M is not a furan, a thiophene, a benzofuran or a benzothiophene as required by the present claims. Furthermore, from the discussion above, Rings A,B, and M, and the groups Ar1 and Ar1’ are substituted with a tert-butyl group as recited in the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Z is B.
Regarding claim 14, Hatakeyama discloses the following compound ([0013] – Formula (1)):
PNG
media_image2.png
277
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where ring A is an aryl ring such as a benzene ring ([0059]-[0060]); ring B is a heteroaryl ring such as a benzofuran ring ([0061]-[0062]); ring C is an aryl ring such as a benzene ring ([0059]-[0060]); Y1 is boron ([0015]); and X1 and X2 are N-R, where R is an aryl such as benzene ([0016] and [0071]). The reference further discloses that at least one hydrogen atom in rings A, B, and C may be substituted with a primary substituent ([0014]); and that the aryl groups in the moiety N-R may also be substituted with secondary substituents ([0016]). As the primary substituent for rings A, B, and C, the reference discloses alkyls such as tert-butyl ([0059]-[0065]). The R, in N-R can be substituted with secondary substituents such as alkyls, e.g. tert-butyl ([0071], [0068], and [0065]).
This compound corresponds to the polycyclic compound represented by Formula 4:
PNG
media_image3.png
264
255
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where Ar1 and Ar1’ are phenyl groups, i.e. C6 aryl groups; ring B is a benzene ring; i.e. a C6 aryl; and Z is B. Ring M is a benzene ring, i.e. C6 aryl. Ring A is a benzofuran ring and corresponds to Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
165
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where X is a direct bond; Y is O; and R1 and R2 combine to form a benzene ring, i.e. an aromatic ring. Accordingly, ring A is a benzofuran ring and ring M is not a furan, a thiophene, a benzofuran or a benzothiophene as required by the present claims. Furthermore, from the discussion above, Rings A,B, and M, and the groups Ar1 and Ar1’ are substituted with a tert-butyl group as recited in the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0094000) as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-14 above, and in view of the reference presented in Jou (US 2010/0051997).
The discussion with respect to Hatakeyama et al as set forth in Paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the electron transport layer has a thickness of 50 nm, i.e. 500 Å, within the recited range of about 100 to about 1,000 Å (Page 181 – Table 2). The organic light emitting device further comprises a 1 nm, i.e. 10 Å, thick layer of LiF between the electron transport layer and the second electrode (Page 181 – Table 2). While the reference does not disclose the layer of LiF as an electron transport layer, as evidenced by Paragraph [0040] of Jou, the electron injection layer is typically made of an electron injection material such as LiF. Accordingly, it is clear that Hatakeyama et al discloses an electron injection layer with a thickness of 1 nm, i.e. 10 Å, within the recited range of about 1 to about 100 Å
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As evidence of unexpected results of the claimed compounds (see Remarks filed on 10/6/2025), Applicants point to Inventive Examples 5 to 6 which utilize Inventive Compounds 1 and 9, i.e.
PNG
media_image5.png
202
308
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image6.png
180
284
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and compare these inventive examples to Comparative Example 1 which utilizes Comparative Compound R-1, i.e.
PNG
media_image7.png
164
274
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
However, while the comparison of the inventive to comparative examples is a proper side-by-side comparison, it is significant to note that the inventive examples are outside the scope of the present claims for the following reasons. As amended, claims 1, 12, and 14 require that rings A,B, and M are substituted aryls or heteroaryls, where Ar1 and Ar1’ and rings A and M are each substituted with an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms and at least one of ring A, ring M, Ar1 or Ar1’ is substituted with a tert-butyl group. However, inventive Compounds 1 and 9 do not possess any alkyl substituents. Accordingly, the above inventive compounds are outside the scope of the present claims.
Furthermore, it is noted that if Applicants’ intentions were to further point to Inventive Examples 1, 2, 3, and 4, presented in Table 1 (Pages 45-46) of the instant Specification, the following should be noted.
Inventive Example 1 utilizes Compound 8:
PNG
media_image8.png
138
204
media_image8.png
Greyscale
;
Inventive Example 2 utilizes Compound 10:
PNG
media_image9.png
160
190
media_image9.png
Greyscale
;
Inventive Example 3 utilizes Compound 11:
PNG
media_image10.png
192
224
media_image10.png
Greyscale
; and
Inventive Example 12 utilizes Compound 12:
PNG
media_image11.png
170
190
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
While these compounds possess substituents encompassed by the present claims, i.e. alkyl substituents, these compounds do not possess a tert-butyl group as currently required by the claims. Accordingly, these examples fall outside the scope of the present claims.
Applicants argue that the addition of the feature that Ring A, Ring M, Ar1 and Ar1’ are each substituted with an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms and at least one of ring A, Ring M, Ar1 or Ar1’ is substituted with a tert-butyl group should be in line with what was discussed during the interview of 9/24/205. However, it is noted that during the interview the Examiner suggested that the claims could be amended to recite substituents that are not disclosed by Hatakeyama, see Interview Summary mailed on 10/1/2025, and for the reasons discussed in the rejection above, Hatakeyama remains applicable against the present claims.
Conclusion
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, 8:00 AM – 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