Patent Application 16549614 - HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING - Rejection

Patent Application 16549614 - HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING

Title: HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE

Application Information

• Invention Title: HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUND AND ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
• Application Number: 16549614
• Submission Date: 2025-05-22T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2019-08-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2019-08-23T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 428
• National Sub-Class: 690000
• Examiner Employee Number: 91937
• Art Unit: 1786
• Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 5
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0212314🔗
• US 0214570🔗
• US 0145699🔗
• US 0202278🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .
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.  

Response to Amendment
The amendment of 16 April 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
	Claims 1-2 and 10 have been amended.
	Claims 4 and 7 are cancelled.
	Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-20 are pending.
The cancellation of claim 7 has rendered moot the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Szafranowska et al. (WO 2019/162332 A1) (hereafter “Szafranowska”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9,  and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al. (US 2008/0145699 A1) (hereafter “Yabe”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szafranowska et al. (WO 2019/162332 A1) (hereafter “Szafranowska”) and as evidenced by Takizawa et al. (US 2012/01563816 A1) (hereafter “Takizawa”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szafranowska et al. (WO 2019/162332 A1) (hereafter “Szafranowska”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.

Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Szafranowska et al. (WO 2019/162332 A1) (hereafter “Szafranowska”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.

Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9,  and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al. (US 2008/0145699 A1) (hereafter “Yabe”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.

Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szafranowska et al. (WO 2019/162332 A1) (hereafter “Szafranowska”) and as evidenced by Takizawa et al. (US 2012/01563816 A1) (hereafter “Takizawa”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.

Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szafranowska et al. (WO 2019/162332 A1) (hereafter “Szafranowska”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.

Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Numata et al. (US 2020/0212314 A1) (hereafter “Numata”) .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10: Numata discloses the compounds shown below (among others on pp. 12-77 of Numata that read on the current claims) {pp. 12-18}.

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    252
    596
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale


    PNG
    media_image2.png
    278
    292
    media_image2.png
    Greyscale

    PNG
    media_image3.png
    224
    302
    media_image3.png
    Greyscale


    PNG
    media_image4.png
    186
    600
    media_image4.png
    Greyscale


    PNG
    media_image5.png
    804
    600
    media_image5.png
    Greyscale


Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.

Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inayama et al. (US 2019/0214570 A1) (hereafter “Inayama”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
However, it is noted that the rejection is additionally under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10: Inayama discloses the compounds shown below (among others on pp. 13-104 of Inayama that read on the current claims) {pp. 13-14}.

    PNG
    media_image6.png
    238
    292
    media_image6.png
    Greyscale


    PNG
    media_image7.png
    288
    288
    media_image7.png
    Greyscale

    PNG
    media_image8.png
    238
    292
    media_image8.png
    Greyscale

Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
However, it is noted that the rejection is additionally under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).

Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inayama et al. (US 2019/0214570 A1) (hereafter “Inayama”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
However, it is noted that the rejection is additionally under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).

Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-15, and 17: Inayama discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0353]-[0360] and Table 6: Example 2}.
The organic layer comprises a hole transport region, which comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer {paragraphs [0353]-[0360] and Table 6: Example 2}.
The organic layer comprises an emission layer, comprising a host and a phosphorescent dopant where the host comprises the compound shown below {(paragraphs [0353]-[0360] and Table 6: Example 2), (p. 13 as well as Table 5: Compound 3)}.

    PNG
    media_image6.png
    238
    292
    media_image6.png
    Greyscale

The organic layer comprises an electron transport region, which comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer {paragraphs [0353]-[0360] and Table 6: Example 2.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
However, it is noted that the rejection is additionally under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).

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.

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.

Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Inayama et al. (US 2019/0214570 A1) (hereafter “Inayama”) in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). 
Regarding claim 17: Inayama discloses all of the features with respect to claim 15, as outlined above.
Inayama does not describe that the organic light-emitting device emits blue light.
However, Inayama teaches that the phosphorescent dopant can be FIrpic {paragraph [0147]}.
Mishima teaches that FIrpic is a blue light-emitting phosphorescent dopant {paragraph [0162]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light-emitting device of Inayama such that FIrpic was used as the phosphorescent light-emitting dopant, based on the teaching of Inayama and Mishima. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a blue-light emitting device, as taught by Mishima.
The resultant device would emit blue light from the emission layer.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 11-12, as outlined above, Inayama et al. (US 2020/0212314 A1) (hereafter “Inayama”) is a representation of the closest prior art. Inanayma does not teach the singlet and triplet levels of the compounds of Inayama. Furthermore, the prior art does not teach the singlet and triplet levels of the compounds of Inayama.
Regarding claim 18, as outlined above, Inayama et al. (US 2020/0212314 A1) (hereafter “Inayama”) is a representation of the closest prior art. Claim 18 requires that the total emission component emitted from the emission layer is 90% or more delayed fluorescence. Inayama does not teach that the devices of Inayama can utilize delayed fluorescence light-emitting dopants. Additionally, neither Inayama nor the prior art teach that the compounds of Inayama can serve either as host materials for delayed fluorescence light-emitting dopants or are delayed fluorescence light-emitting dopants themselves.
Regarding claims 16 and 19-20, as outlined above, Inayama et al. (US 2020/0212314 A1) (hereafter “Inayama”) is a representation of the closest prior art. Claims 19-20 depend from claim 16, and claim 16 requires that the compound represented by the instant Formula I be a dopant of the emission layer of the organic light-emitting device. Inayama does not teach that the compounds of Inayama can be used as dopants in the emission layer of an organic light-emitting device. Additionally, the prior art does not teach that the compounds of Inayama can be used as dopants in the emission layer of an organic light-emitting device.

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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.





/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786