DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 10/15/25.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, and 27-29 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/15/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murase et al. (WO 2005/113531 A1) in view of Lu (US 2005/0194892 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/15/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murase et al. (WO 2005/113531 A1) in view of Lu (US 2005/0194892 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/15/25 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim, which is dependent on Claim 1, recites compounds (H-B-91) to (H-B-100) of compound group α which are not encompassed by formula (B) due to additional substitutions on the core anthracene ring.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10. Claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murase et al. (WO 2005/113531 A1) in view of Lu (US 2005/0194892 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2007/0247063 A1 as the English equivalent of PCT publication WO 2005/113531 A1 (herein referred to as “Murase et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Regarding Claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, and 28, Murase et al. discloses anthracene derivatives the use of which results in an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (element) with high luminous efficiency and excellent durability (Abstract) for the construction of displays and the like ([0001]); compounds include the following (which are explicitly disclosed and thus can be easily selected):
PNG
media_image1.png
495
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 20) and
PNG
media_image2.png
452
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 34) (α1 and α2, respectively) such that Xb1 (or Yb1) = benzene ring, Xb2 (or Yb2) = aromatic hydrocarbon ring group which has 6 carbon atoms and has a substituent (substituted phenyl), Xb3 (or Yb3) = hydrogen, Yb1 (or Xb1) = benzene ring, and Yb2-3 (or Xb2-3) = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula (B). Notice that greater than 60% of the structure of α1 is identical with the “basic framework” as defined by the Applicant. Murase et al. further discloses its inventive compounds as host material (with “excellent thin film stability”) comprising the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device; a plurality of its inventive compounds can be mixed (i.e., >= 2 of its inventive anthracene compounds in a mixture) ([0063]-[0064], [0066]). However, Murase et al. does not explicitly disclose a solvent nor the relative amounts of the compounds which constitute compound group α.
Lu discloses an organic EL device comprising a light-emitting layer; the layer comprises a “mixed-host emissive layer” comprises a first host material and a second host material which are different in combination with dopant (luminescent) material ([0047], [0064], [0074]). Lu discloses that the organic EL device is incorporated into displays ([0062]). Lu discloses a 1:1 concentration of the first and second host materials in an emissive composition ([0065]). The light-emitting layer is formed via “any suitable method,” including (vacuum) thermal evaporation and solution-based processes (inherently involving dissolution of the materials in solvent in any suitable amount) to form a uniform concentration profile ([0078]-[0079], [0112]). It would have been obvious to similarly utilize the solution-based deposition method as disclosed by Lu in forming the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Murase et al. (i.e., wherein the compounds as disclosed by Murase et al. can be dissolved in solvent with the recited limits in a 1:1 weight ratio between the host materials). The motivation is provided by the fact it has been long established that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see also MPEP 2144.05). Notice that Lu discloses a viable and functionally equivalent method of light-emitting layer formation in which a uniform concentration profile can be achieved also comprising a mixture of different host materials in solvent, thus rendering the application of its method to the composition as disclosed by Murase et al. predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 27, Murase et al. discloses further embodiments, such as the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
514
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 36) such that Xb1 (or Yb1) = benzene ring, Xb2 (or Yb2) = aromatic hydrocarbon ring group which has 6 carbon atoms and has a substituent (substituted phenyl), Xb3 (or Yb3) = hydrogen, Yb1 (or Xb1) = phenanthrene ring, and Yb2-3 (or Xb2-3) = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula (B).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments on pages 22-23 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786