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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 06/11/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-6 and 8-10 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2021/0376255 A1) and Cho et al. (US 2019/0214572 A1) is withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-10 were originally filed.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2021/0376255 A1) and Zeng et al. (US 2015/0053938 A1)
With respect to claim 1, Hatakeyama teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), a light emitting layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0009), and an electron transport zone comprising an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer (paragraph 0168). The light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by Formula (1), and an anthracene based compound represented by Formula (3) (abstract).
A representative example of the compound of Formula 1, compound 1-1152 (page 5) is pictured below, and a representative example of the compound of Formula 3, compound 3-5 (page 6) is pictured beside it.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
161
311
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-1152 meets the requirements of instant Formula (2) when rings A, B, and C are a substituted or unsubstituted C6 aryl, Y1 is boron, X1 and X2 are NR, and R is an unsubstituted C6 or unsubstituted C12 (phenyl or biphenyl) aryl.
Compound 3-5 meets the requirements of instant Formula (1) when L1 is a direct bond, L2 is an unsubstituted C10 arylene (naphthalene), and Ar1 and Ar2 are both an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl).
However, while Hatakeyama teaches that any hydrogen atom can be replaced by deuterium (paragraph 0019), Compound 3-5 differs from the claimed invention in that the anthracene core is not fully deuterated.
In analogous art, Yoon teaches an anthracene derivative for use in an electroluminescent device wherein just the anthracene core is deuterated (abstract).
Yoon teaches that host compounds wherein just the anthracene core is deuterated have the advantages of light emitting efficiency, lifespan, and production cost (paragraph 0095). This is because deuterium is expensive and deuterating just the anthracene core provides sufficient lifespan while minimizing the production cost as a result of deuterium atoms (paragraph 0200).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate just the anthracene core of the Compound 3-5 in order to provide the advantages of light emitting efficiency and lifespan, while minimizing production cost as a result of the deuterium atoms, as taught by Yoon.
However, while Hatakeyama teaches the electron transport layer may comprise a triazine derivative (paragraph 0194, lines 1-15 and Formula ETM-10-1, paragraph 0314), and while an electron transport layer is capable of acting as a hole blocking layer, neither Hatakeyama nor Yoon teaches a hole blocking layer comprising a compound of instant Formula (11-1).
Zeng teaches a hole blocking material (paragraph 0127) for use in a hole blocking layer (paragraph 0143) located between a light-emitting layer and the second electrode (paragraph 0040 and Figure 1) in an organic electroluminescent device having substantially higher efficiencies as compared to a similar device lacking a hole blocking layer (paragraph 0143).
Zeng gives an example of the hole blocking material, Compound E60 (page 25), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
426
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula (11-1) when A1 and A2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) group, L3 is a C6 arylene (phenylene), m is 1 and Ar3 is an unsubstituted 20-membered heteroaryl (benzothieno[2,3-a]carbazolyl).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hole blocking layer of Zeng comprising the hole blocking material of Zeng into the device of Hatakeyama in order to produce a device having substantially higher efficiencies as compared to a similar device lacking such a hole blocking layer, as taught by Zeng.
With respect to claim 2, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Zeng teach the device of claim 1, and in Formula (2), the substituent of the substituted aryl is a C6 aryl (phenyl), as pictured above. The compounds of Formulae 1 and (11-1) do not contain any substituted groups.
With respect to claim 3, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Zeng teach the device of claim 1, and L1 is a single bond, and L2 is an unsubstituted C10 arylene (naphthalene), which is the third embodiment of instant Group 1, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Zeng teach the device of claim 1, and Ar1 and Ar2 in Formula 1 are each a phenyl group, which is the first embodiment of Group 2 of the instant claim.
With respect to claim 5, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Zeng teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound 3-5, which is discussed above, is derived from Hatakeyama formula (3), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
215
237
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 3-5 can be derived from this formula when Ar4 is a deuterium atom (paragraph 0038 and 0019), one X is represented by Formula (3-X3), and the other X is represented by Formula (3-X1). In Formula 3-X3, Ar3 is a phenyl group (paragraph 0037, lines 1-7). In formula 3-X1, Ar1 is a phenyl group (paragraph 0037, lines 1-7).
Hatakeyama also teaches that Ar1 may be represented by Formula 4-1 (paragraph 0037, lines 6-10), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
94
258
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In formula 4-1, Y is an oxygen atom (paragraph 0040).
This forms a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim when three of R9-R12 are hydrogen atoms, and X is an oxygen atom.
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent, such as the substituent of formula (4-1), from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound for use in an organic electroluminescent element in a light emitting layer which has excellent quantum efficiency (paragraph 0550), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 6, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Zeng teach the device of claim 1, and the compound represented by formula 2 is represented by formula 2-1 when R23 is a C6 aryl group and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 8, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Zeng teach the device of claim 1, and the compound represented by formula 1 is compound H-1 when n is 8, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Zeng teach the device of claim 1, and the compound represented by formula 2 is the first embodiment (line 1, column 1) on page 19 of the instant claims.
With respect to claim 10, Hatakeyama, Yoon, and Zeng teach the device of claim 1, and the compound represented by formula 11-1 is instant compound B-15, as pictured above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights