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All outstanding claims objections and 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 7/6/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
No new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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 1-9 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 evidence presented in Jou (US 2010/0051997).
The discussion with respect to Hatakeyama et al as set forth in Paragraph 6 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 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Regarding the data presented in the Remarks filed on 7/6/2022, it is noted that the Table on Page 11 of the Remarks presents new Inventive Examples 6-9. However, the data is not in the form of the 37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declaration. Accordingly, 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 unexpected results of the claimed compounds 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”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing 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, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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