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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/02/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 9-15, and 19-21, and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2019/0305227 A1) in view of Totani et al. (JP 2007-077094 A) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/30/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 9-15, and 19-21, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2019/0305227 A1) in view of Kang et al. (KR 10-2017-0039020).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication KR 10-2017-0039020 (herein referred to as “Kang et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 9-12, 14, 15, 19-21, and 28-30, Yoon et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image1.png
758
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising first light emission sub-stack (ST1) comprising first light-emitting layer (144), charge-generating layer (CGL), and second light emission sub-stack (ST2) comprising second light-emitting layer (154) interposed between a first electrode (110) (anode) and second electrode (120) (cathode); the first light-emitting layer may comprise a combination of two light-emitting layers such as a blue light-emitting layer (first emitting layer) and a red light-emitting layer (second emitting layer) ([0055], [0065]), while the second light-emitting layer may comprise a combination of two light-emitting layers such as a yellow-green light-emitting layer (third emitting layer) and a green light-emitting layer (fourth emitting layer) ([0056], [0066]); alternatively, notice that the first light-emitting layer (and the second light-emitting layer) can be divided into two identical (sub)layers. Yoon et al. discloses that the first light-emitting layer (thus at least one of the blue and red light-emitting layers) and/or second light-emitting layer (thus at least one of the yellow-green and green light-emitting layers) comprise the following deuterated host material (which is combined with fluorescent dopant material) ([0068], [0238]):
PNG
media_image2.png
400
347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 17) such that R1-8 = deuterium, L1B-2B = single bond, and Ar2B = unsubstituted aryl group including 10 carbon ring atoms (naphthyl), R12B = single bond to L1B, and R11B = R13B-18B = hydrogen of Applicant’s formula (1B). Yoon et al. discloses that its inventive compounds may be employed in the blue light-emitting layer ([0012]) (and thus can be readily incorporated into such a layer as host material). However, Yoon et al. does not explicitly disclose the presence of the other of the first and second emitting layers that substantially does not comprise a host material having a deuterium atom.
Kang et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
138
184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 18 of the foreign patent publication) as host material of the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device ([0072]); such compounds have electrochemical and thermal stability ([0006]). It would have been obvious to incorporate such an anthracene derivative as disclosed by Kang et al. (above) into the red light-emitting layer (second emitting layer) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Yoon et al. (as host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kang et al. which teaches that its inventive compounds have electrochemical and thermal stability.
Regarding Claim 13, Yoon et al. discloses that a plurality of kinds of host materials (“one or more compounds”) of Chemical Formula 1 can be present in the light-emitting layer(s) ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 31, Yoon et al. discloses another embodiment (which can be alternatively presence in the blue light-emitting layer as host material):
PNG
media_image4.png
460
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 19) such that R12B-18B = deuterium of Applicant’s formula (1B).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 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
9. 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 Chriss 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
Prosecution Insights