DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 2, 2025 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated July 2, 2025 has been entered. Claim 12 was canceled. Claim 1 was amended.
The rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Mizuki et al. (US 2016/0181527 A1) as set forth in the last office action mailed April 10, 2025 is withdrawn due to the amendment received July 2, 2025.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuki et al. (US 2016/0181527 A1).
Mizuki et al. discloses at least Example 6 (see Table 1, page 73) as an example light emitting device comprising “a first electrode”, “a second electrode” and “one or more organic material layers” wherein “the one or more organic material layers comprise a light emitting layer” as recited in instant claim 1. Note that claim 1 only requires a specific host material for the light emitting layer “when the light emitting layer” comprises “Compound BD1” or “Compound BD2”. The instant claim 1 claim language does not require that a dopant BD1 or BD2 is necessarily present in a light emitting layer of the recited device. Accordingly, example 6 light emitting device (see par. 215-217) comprising host EM2 and dopant DM-1 in a light emitting layer between electrodes anticipates instant claim 1 as compound dopant DM-1 (see par. 198) is not either of instant compounds BD1 or BD2 and therefore a specific host as recited is not required.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cha et al. (US 2021/0288266 A1).
Cha et al. discloses at least Example 7(see Table 1, par. 174-178) as an example light emitting device comprising “a first electrode”, “a second electrode” and “one or more organic material layers” wherein “the one or more organic material layers comprise a light emitting layer” as recited in instant claim 1. Note that claim 1 only requires a specific host material for the light emitting layer “when the light emitting layer” comprises “Compound BD1” or “Compound BD2”. Instant claim 1 does not require that a dopant BD1 or BD2 is necessarily present in the recited device. Accordingly, example 7 device (see par. 178) comprising host Compound 3 and dopant Chemical Formula 45 (see pages 17 and 13 for compound structures) in a light emitting layer between electrodes anticipates instant claim 1 as Cha et al. compound dopant DM-1 (see page 13) is not either of instant compounds BD1 or BD2 and therefore a specific host is not 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, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2021/0288266 A1).
Cha et al. teaches organic light emitting diodes comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and a light emitting layer between the electrodes where the light emitting layer comprises an amine compound of Formula A and an anthracene derivative of formula B or C (see claim 1, page 67).
Formula A is the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see par. 12-21).
Formula C is the following (see par. 40):
PNG
media_image2.png
246
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Further regarding Formula A, Chemical Formula 1 is taught as an example:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(par. 63).
The compound is identical to instant compound BD2 except that two phenyls are in place of two naphthyl groups; however, general Formula A is defined such that Ar1 or Ar2 groups may be selected as aryl naphthyl (see par. 40, 47, and also see representative naphthyl groups within Chemical Formula 6 on page 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a Formula A compound as defined wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of instant compound BD2.
Further regarding an anthracene host compound of Formula C, the formula is defined such that Ar3 may be selected as at least phenyl (see par. 43, 46) and R33 may be selected as substituted phenyl (see par. 42) where a substituent may be selected as arylsilyl of 6 carbon atoms per a triphenylsilyl group (see par. 44). A Formula C compound with these selected, defined groups is the same as this claimed host compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
180
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds as defined by Cha et al. and to use the compounds in a layer of a device as taught by Cha et al. wherein the resultant compounds and device structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device as disclosed by Cha et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The present claim is not limited to only devices comprising dopants BD1 or BD2 in a light emitting layer as discussed in the above 35 USC 102 rejections. Claim 1 is anticipated as discussed above and accordingly, comparison data can not overcome the rejections.
Regarding an obviousness rejection over Cha et al. as set forth in this office action, the comparison data of Table 1 is not considered commensurate in scope with the breadth of teachings within Cha et al. Further, it is unclear that the alleged “improved” lifetimes presented in Table 1 are of statistical significance. (See MPEP 716.02, especially 716.02(b)). Applicants have the burden of explaining data they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Song, J. Y., Park, S. N., Lee, S. J., Kim, Y. K., & Yoon, S. S. (2015). Novel fluorescent blue-emitting materials based on anthracene-fluorene hybrids with triphenylsilane group for organic light-emitting diodes. Dyes and Pigments, 114, 40-46.
The reference discusses substituted anthracene derivatives relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786