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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 21-22, 24, and 26-29 are rejected 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 1 recites the broad limitation “wherein Q1 to Q3 are identical to or different from each other and are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C50 aromatic hydrocarbon ring or a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C50 heteroaromatic ring” and the claim also recites the limitation that Q1 is presented by one of Structures 1 to 8, i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
96
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
112
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 21 recites the broad limitation “wherein Q1 to Q3 are identical to or different from each other and are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C50 aromatic hydrocarbon ring or a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C50 heteroaromatic ring”, and the claim also recites the limitation that for Formula A-1 Q2 and Q3 are represented by one of Structures 10 to 13, i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
72
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
86
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
and that for Formula A-2, Q2 and Q3 are represented Structures 9 to 13
PNG
media_image5.png
94
92
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
72
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
86
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
,
which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 of this title, 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 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 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 1-4, 6-11, 21-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 2023/0096132).
Regarding claim 1, discloses the following organic electroluminescent element, i.e. an organic electroluminescent device ([0178] – Figure 1):
PNG
media_image6.png
413
631
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the positive electrode (102) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the negative electrode (108) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and layer 105 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer ([0178]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following polycyclic aromatic compound as a dopant ([0116], [0196]-[0197], [0113], and Page 22 – Formula 2-6):
PNG
media_image7.png
436
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R11 are hydrogen or an aryl such as a benzene ([0104] and [0083]-[0084]), and where the aryl, e.g. benzene, is fused with a cycloalkane ([0032] and [0036]); Y1 is B, P, or P=O ([0033]); X1 and X2 are C(-R)2 ([0115]), where R is hydrogen ([0034]).
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (A-2):
PNG
media_image8.png
198
282
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where Q1 and Q3 are benzene rings, i.e. unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon rings; X1 and X2 are B, P or P=O; Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 are CR8R9, where R8 and R9 are H; and R1 to R6 are H, where one (1) of R1 to R6 is a benzene with a fused cycloalkane, i.e. one (1) of R1 to R6 is substituted C6 aryl.
Q1 is represented by Structure 5:
PNG
media_image9.png
84
152
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 CR”, and R” is H.
The light emitting layer further comprises the following compound as a host compound ([0200], [0202], and Page 513 – Compound 3-79):
PNG
media_image10.png
287
358
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula B of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image11.png
206
246
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where R12 to R19 are hydrogen, L1 is a single bond; the integer n is one (1); Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; and Ar2 is an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following anthracene-based host compound (Page 512 – Compound 3-58):
PNG
media_image12.png
166
392
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula B of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image11.png
206
246
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where R12 to R19 are hydrogen, L1 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene; the integer n is one (1); Ar1 is a substituted C6 aryl; and Ar2 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic electroluminescent device nor can the claimed organic electroluminescent device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic electroluminescent device and the organic electroluminescent device 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 compounds which are both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the polycyclic aromatic compound of the reference Q2 and Q3 are benzene, thereby corresponding to Structure 9 of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image13.png
114
101
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 is CR”, and R” is H.
Regarding claim 4, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer comprises the following anthracene-based compound as a host:
PNG
media_image14.png
289
465
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula (B-1) of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image15.png
291
263
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where R21 to R36 are H; Z is O; L2 is a single bond; Ar3 is a benzene group; and the integer m is one (1).
Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following host compound:
PNG
media_image12.png
166
392
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Compound 7.
Regarding claim 7, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image14.png
289
465
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Compound 222 of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the compound corresponding to recited Formula (A-1) as a dopant and the compound corresponding to recited Formula (B) as a host.
Regarding claim 9, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the device disclosed by the reference, i.e.
PNG
media_image16.png
413
673
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
comprises a hole injection layer (103), a hole transport layer (104), an electron transport layer (106), and an electron injection layer (107), corresponding to the recited additional layer ([0178]).
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the layers are formed by vapor deposition, i.e. a deposition process ([0483]).
Regarding claim 11, Hatakeyama ‘115 teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the device is used is a flat panel display ([0547]).
Regarding claim 21, discloses the following organic electroluminescent element, i.e. an organic electroluminescent device ([0178] – Figure 1):
PNG
media_image6.png
413
631
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where the positive electrode (102) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the negative electrode (108) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and layer 105 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer ([0178]).
The light emitting layer comprises the following polycyclic aromatic compound as a dopant ([0116], [0196]-[0197], [0113], and Page 22 – Formula 2-5-3):
PNG
media_image17.png
476
334
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R11 are hydrogen or an aryl such as a benzene ([0104] and [0083]-[0084]), and where the aryl, e.g. benzene, is fused with a cycloalkane ([0032] and [0036]); Y1 is B, P, or P=O ([0033]); and X1 is N-R ([0034]), where R is an unsubstituted C3-14 cycloalkyl ([0020] and [0034]).
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (A-1):
PNG
media_image18.png
180
313
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is a benzene ring, i.e. unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon ring; X1 and X2 are B, P or P=O; Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 are N-R, where R is an unsubstituted C3-14 cycloalkyl; and R1 to R6 are H, where one (1) of R1 to R6 is a benzene with a fused cycloalkane, i.e. one (1) of R1 to R6 is substituted C6 aryl.
In Formula 2-5-3, rings Q2 and Q3 are benzene rings and therefore do no correspond to Structures 11-13 recited in the present claims. However, the formula disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (1) ([0016]):
PNG
media_image19.png
156
164
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
where rings A and C can be heteroaryl rings such as dibenzofuran ([0085]-[0086]):
PNG
media_image20.png
203
286
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
This corresponds to Structures 11 to 13 of the claims:
PNG
media_image21.png
76
450
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 is O and Z2 CR”, and R” is H.
Alternatively, the light emitting layer comprises the following polycyclic aromatic compound as a dopant ([0116], [0196]-[0197], [0113], and Page 22 – Formula 2-6):
PNG
media_image7.png
436
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R11 are hydrogen or an aryl such as a benzene ([0104] and [0083]-[0084]), and where the aryl, e.g. benzene, is fused with a cycloalkane ([0032] and [0036]); Y1 is B, P, or P=O ([0033]); X1 and X2 are C(-R)2 ([0115]), where R is hydrogen ([0034]).
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (A-2):
PNG
media_image8.png
198
282
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where Q1 and Q3 are benzene rings, i.e. unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon rings represented by Structure 9:
PNG
media_image22.png
94
94
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 is CR”, and R” is H.
In Formula 2-6, Q1 is an unsubstituted C10 aromatic hydrocarbon ring X1 and X2 are B, P or P=O; Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 are CR8R9, where R8 and R9 are H; and R1 to R6 are H, where one (1) of R1 to R6 is a benzene with a fused cycloalkane, i.e. one (1) of R1 to R6 is substituted C6 aryl.
The light emitting layer further comprises the following compound as a host compound ([0200], [0202], and Page 513 – Compound 3-79):
PNG
media_image10.png
287
358
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula B of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image11.png
206
246
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where R12 to R19 are hydrogen, L1 is a single bond; the integer n is one (1); Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; and Ar2 is an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following anthracene-based host compound (Page 512 – Compound 3-58):
PNG
media_image12.png
166
392
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula B of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image11.png
206
246
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where R12 to R19 are hydrogen, L1 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene; the integer n is one (1); Ar1 is a substituted C6 aryl; and Ar2 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic electroluminescent device nor can the claimed organic electroluminescent device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic electroluminescent device and the organic electroluminescent device 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 compounds which are both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the polycyclic aromatic compound of the reference:
PNG
media_image17.png
476
334
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Q1 is benzene, thereby corresponding to Structure 2 of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image23.png
84
121
media_image23.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 CR”, and R” is H.
Furthermore, in the disclosed formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
436
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
Q1 corresponds to Structure 5:
PNG
media_image9.png
84
152
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 CR”, and R” is H.
Regarding claim 24, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer comprises the following anthracene-based compound as a host:
PNG
media_image14.png
289
465
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula (B-1) of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image15.png
291
263
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where R21 to R36 are H; Z is O; L2 is a single bond; Ar3 is a benzene group; and the integer m is one (1).
Regarding claim 26, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following host compound:
PNG
media_image12.png
166
392
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Compound 7.
Regarding claim 27, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the compound corresponding to recited Formula (A-1) as a dopant and the compound corresponding to recited Formula (B) as a host.
Regarding claim 28, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the device disclosed by the reference, i.e.
PNG
media_image16.png
413
673
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
comprises a hole injection layer (103), a hole transport layer (104), an electron transport layer (106), and an electron injection layer (107), corresponding to the recited additional layer ([0178]).
Regarding claim 29, Hatakeyama teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the layers are formed by vapor deposition, i.e. a deposition process ([0483]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Hatakeyama et al fails to disclose the compound as recited in amended claims 1 and 21, i.e. the reference does not disclose a compound where Q1 corresponds to one of recited structures in claim 1 or a compound where Q2 and Q3 corresponds to one of the recited structures. However, regarding claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above the reference discloses the following formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
436
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R11 are hydrogen or an aryl such as a benzene ([0104] and [0083]-[0084]), and where the aryl, e.g. benzene, is fused with a cycloalkane ([0032] and [0036]); Y1 is B, P, or P=O ([0033]); X1 and X2 are C(-R)2 ([0115]), where R is hydrogen ([0034]).
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (A-2):
PNG
media_image8.png
198
282
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where Q1 and Q3 are benzene rings, i.e. unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon rings; X1 and X2 are B, P or P=O; Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 are CR8R9, where R8 and R9 are H; and R1 to R6 are H, where one (1) of R1 to R6 is a benzene with a fused cycloalkane, i.e. one (1) of R1 to R6 is substituted C6 aryl.
Q1 is represented by Structure 5:
PNG
media_image9.png
84
152
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 CR”, and R” is H.
Furthermore, regarding claim 21, as discussed in the rejections above the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image17.png
476
334
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R11 are hydrogen or an aryl such as a benzene ([0104] and [0083]-[0084]), and where the aryl, e.g. benzene, is fused with a cycloalkane ([0032] and [0036]); Y1 is B, P, or P=O ([0033]); and X1 is N-R ([0034]), where R is an unsubstituted C3-14 cycloalkyl ([0020] and [0034]).
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (A-1):
PNG
media_image18.png
180
313
media_image18.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is a benzene ring, i.e. unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon ring; X1 and X2 are B, P or P=O; Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 are N-R, where R is an unsubstituted C3-14 cycloalkyl; and R1 to R6 are H, where one (1) of R1 to R6 is a benzene with a fused cycloalkane, i.e. one (1) of R1 to R6 is substituted C6 aryl.
In Formula 2-5-3 rings Q2 and Q3 are benzene rings and therefore do no correspond to Structures 11-13 recited in the present claims. However, the formula disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (1) ([0016]):
PNG
media_image19.png
156
164
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
where rings A and C can be heteroaryl rings such as dibenzofuran ([0085]-[0086]):
PNG
media_image20.png
203
286
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
This corresponds to Structures 11 to 13 of the claims:
PNG
media_image21.png
76
450
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
where Z1 is O and Z2 CR”, and R” is H.
Alternatively, the light emitting layer comprises the following polycyclic aromatic compound as a dopant ([0116], [0196]-[0197], [0113], and Page 22 – Formula 2-6):
PNG
media_image7.png
436
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R11 are hydrogen or an aryl such as a benzene ([0104] and [0083]-[0084]), and where the aryl, e.g. benzene, is fused with a cycloalkane ([0032] and [0036]); Y1 is B, P, or P=O ([0033]); X1 and X2 are C(-R)2 ([0115]), where R is hydrogen ([0034]).
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula (A-2):
PNG
media_image8.png
198
282
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where Q1 and Q3 are benzene rings, i.e. unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon rings represented by Structure 9:
PNG
media_image22.png
94
94
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where Z2 is CR”, and R” is H.
In Formula 2-6, Q1 is an unsubstituted C10 aromatic hydrocarbon ring X1 and X2 are B, P or P=O; Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4 are CR8R9, where R8 and R9 are H; and R1 to R6 are H, where one (1) of R1 to R6 is a benzene with a fused cycloalkane, i.e. one (1) of R1 to R6 is substituted C6 aryl.
Conclusion
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 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 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