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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 12/22/2021, and the application filed in Europe on 04/23/2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–2, 4–5, 8–10, and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2023/0320214 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 05/28/2026, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses the organic light emitting device of Example 15 [Table 1, pg. 1734] comprising BD 11 [pg. 1701]. BD 11 reads on Applicant’s Formula I (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
291
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
291
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R1 and R2 are joined together to form a heteroaromatic ring (benzothiophene),
RH is a hydrogen,
n is 0, while m is 1 with Ra being a hydrogen,
p is 1, while q is 0,
r is 1 with Ra being a C6 aryl (phenyl),
s is 1 with Ra being a C6 aryl (phenyl),
Z is a direct bond,
two instances of Ra are joined together to form an benzo-fused ring system.
Regarding Claim 2, RH is hydrogen in BD 11.
Regarding Claim 4, two instances of Ra are joined together to form a benzo-fused ring system in BD 11.
Regarding Claim 5, Ra is selected form hydrogen, Ph, and
PNG
media_image3.png
91
74
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in BD 11.
Regarding Claim 8, the organic light emitting device of Example 15 comprises: (a) BD 11 as a dopant, and (b) BH 5 as a host [Table 1].
Regarding Claim 9, the organic light emitting device of Example 15 comprises BD 11 and BH 5 in a weight ratio of 5:95.
Regarding Claim 10, BH 5 [pg. 1724] reads on Applicant’s Formula 4 (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
231
112
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
206
333
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar is a C6 aryl in one instance (phenyl),
Ar is a C12 heteroaryl (dibenzofuran) substituted with a C18 heteroaryl (phenylcarbazole),
A1 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claims 12–14, Example 15 is an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer comprising BD 11 as a luminescent emitter (Table 1 and [0006]).
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, 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 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0320214 A1).
Regarding Claims 1–3, 5, and 7, Kim discloses Compound 1 [pg. 372] (shown below). However, Compound 1 fails to read on Applicant’s Formula I since R1 is not an alkyl group or aryl group.
PNG
media_image1.png
291
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
245
211
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 is represented by Kim’s Chemical Formula 1-1-6 [pg. 9], wherein Z3 is a hydrogen. Kim teaches Z1 to Z3 may be tert-butyl [0223]. Kim further teaches organic light emitting devices comprising compounds of Kim’s disclosure in the light emitting layer has high color purity, high efficiency, and long lifetime properties [0023].
PNG
media_image7.png
260
293
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
245
211
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute hydrogen with tert-butyl in Z3, because Kim teaches the variable may suitably be selected as tert-butyl. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a dopant in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possess the benefits taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose tert-butyl, because it would have been choosing from the substituents listed for Z1 to Z3 [0223], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Kim’s Formula 1-1-6 having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 1, the modified version of Compound 1 (hereinafter “Modified 1”) reads on Applicant’s Formula I (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
291
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
394
309
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R1 and R2 are each represented by a C4 alkyl (tert-butyl),
RH is a hydrogen,
n is 1, while m is 0,
p is 1, while q is 0,
r is 0,
s is 0,
Z is a direct bond at each occurrence,
Ra is not present since r and s are each 0.
Per Claim 2, RH is a hydrogen in Modified 1.
Per Claims 3 and 7, R1 and R2 are each C4 alkyl (tert-butyl) in Modified 1.
Per Claim 5, Ra is not present in Modified 1 since r and s are each 0. Therefore, the limitation on an optional substituent is met by Modified 1.
Regarding Claims 8, 10, and 12–14, Kim teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 as a dopant, such as Modified 1, and a compound of Kim’s Chemical Formula H as a host [0030]. Kim discloses BH 1 is a compound of Kim’s Chemical Formula H [pg. 1723]. Kim further teaches organic light emitting devices comprising compounds of Kim’s disclosure in the light emitting layer has high color purity, high efficiency, and long lifetime properties [0023].
However, Kim does not explicitly teach an organic light emitting device comprising Modified 1 as a dopant and BH 1 as a host in the light emitting layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Modified 1 as a dopant and BH 1 as a host in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results of a organic light emitting device with high color purity, high efficiency, and long lifetime properties, as taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claims 8, 12–14, the organic light emitting device, as described above (hereinafter “Device 1”), reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes a light emitting layer which comprises Modified 1 as a dopant (a) and BH 1 as a host (b).
Per Claim 10, Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises BH 1 which reads on Applicant’s Formula 4 (shown below),
PNG
media_image4.png
231
112
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
309
150
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar is a C6 aryl in one instance (phenyl),
Ar is a C12 heteroaryl (dibenzofuran),
A1 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 9, Device 1 fails to specify the weight ratio of Modified 1 and BH 1.
Kim teaches Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula H have a weight ratio of 1:99 to 10:90 [0388]. The disclosed organic light emitting devices taught by Kim have a weight ratio of 5:95 of Chemical Formula 1 to Chemical Formula H [0709].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a weight ratio of 5:95 for Modified 1 and BH 1 based on the exemplified organic light emitting devices taught by Kim. One would be motivated to use this weight ratio based on the high color purity, high efficiency, and long lifetime properties, as taught by Kim. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11, Device 1 appears to be silent with respect to comprising a TADF material.
Kim teaches the compounds of present disclosure are an iteration on a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material having a core structure including boron [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that Modified 1 has the property of thermally activated delayed fluorescence since the core structure includes boron. Thus Device 1 comprises a TADF material since Modified 1 has the thermally activated delayed fluorescence property.
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches an organic light emission phenomenon refers to a phenomenon of converting electrical energy to light energy using an organic light emitting device [0003]. Kim further teaches the light emitting efficiency of the exemplified organic light emitting devices of present disclosure were measured at a current density of 10 mA/cm2 [0713]. Additionally, Kim teaches the light emitting layer has a maximum emission peak present in the range of 400 nm to 500 nm [0386].
However, Kim does not explicitly teach applying current to Device 1 or that the light generated from applying a current to Device 1 would generate light of a wavelength from 440 nm to 560 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply an electrical current in order to generate light from the device, as is desired by Kim because the device is an organic light emitting device. It would have been further obvious to select the emission wavelength to be from 440 nm to 560 nm, as Kim discloses that the light emitting layers have a wavelength overlapping this range and an ordinary artisan would have selected the desired peak wavelength based on the desired color and color purity requirement for the organic light emitting device and based on the high color purity, high efficiency, and long lifetime benefits, as taught by Kim. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The result would be a method of generating light of a wavelength from 440 nm to 560 nm comprising (i) using Device 1, as described above, and (ii) applying an electrical current to Device 1.
Regarding Claims 4 and 6, Modified 1 fails to comprise two Ra are bonded together to form a benzo-fused ring system.
Modified 1 is represented by Kim’s Chemical Formula 1-1-6 [pg. 9], wherein G7 is a hydrogen. Kim teaches BD 19 wherein G7 forms a benzo-fused ring system (benzene) [pg. 1732]. Kim further teaches organic light emitting devices comprising compounds of Kim’s disclosure in the light emitting layer has high color purity, high efficiency, and long lifetime properties [0023].
PNG
media_image7.png
260
293
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
317
284
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute hydrogen with a fused benzene as G7, because Kim teaches the variable may suitably be selected as a fused benzene. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as dopant in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possess the benefits taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per Claim 4, the further modified version of Modified 1, as described above (hereinafter “Modified 2”), reads on Applicant’s limitation since two Ra are joined together to form a benzo-fused ring system.
Per Claim 6, Modified 2 reads on Applicant’s Formula IIa-21 (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
284
246
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
422
351
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ra are each hydrogen,
Ra2 are joined together to form a benzo-fused ring system,
RH is hydrogen,
Rb is hydrogen,
R1 and R2 are each a C4 alkyl (tert-butyl).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schäfer et al. (WO 2021/255698 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 01/18/2025, hereinafter “Schafer”) teaches Compound 2 [pg. 170–171] which nearly reads on Applicant’s Formula I. However, R1 and R2 are each represented by hydrogen. Schafer teaches those positions are preferably tert-butyl [pg. 23], and therefore Compound 2 could be modified to read on Applicant’s Formula I.
PNG
media_image13.png
258
250
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights