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 .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 7/31/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 7/31/2026. In particular, original Claim 1 has been amended to recite limitations not previously presented, i.e. the claim has been amended to recite specific compound encompassed by Formula 2. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
Claim 1-7 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 recitation Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
174
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where L2 is a single bond; phenylene; or phenylene substituted with at least one deuterium, L3 and L4 are a single bond, Ar3 and Ar4 are each independently phenyl, biphenyl, naphthyl, phenanthrenyl, phenylphenanthrenyl, triphenylenyl, phenyInaphthyl or naphthylphenyl, each of which is independently unsubstituted or substituted with at least one deuterium, R is deuterium, and n is an integer of 0 to 9, and the claim also recites specific compounds encompassed by Chemical Formula 2, e.g.
PNG
media_image2.png
152
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
160
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which is the 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2012/0199820) in view of Lee et al (US 2020/0203623).
Regarding claim 1, Ito et al discloses an organic electroluminescent element, i.e. an organic light emitting device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer disposed between the anode and cathode (Abstract). The light emitting layer comprises the following host compound (Abstract and [0090]):
PNG
media_image4.png
238
335
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
L2 is a single bond;
L3 and L4 are single bonds;
Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl groups; and
the integer n is zero (0), i.e. R is hydrogen.
Alternatively, as discussed above, Ito et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
238
335
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not correspond to the recited compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
242
320
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (1a) of the reference ([0030]):
PNG
media_image7.png
104
192
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar1 can be a phenanthryl ([0034] – Formula 2A), Ar2 is a naphthyl group ([0055]); n is one (1) ([0033]); Ar3 is a phenyl group ([0058]); and Ar4 is a phenanthrene groups ([0034] – Formula 2A). Accordingly, the disclosure of Ito et al encompasses the recited compound.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a second host compound, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as required by the present claims ([0027] and [0041]).
Lee et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes and a light emitting layer disposed between the electrodes ([0014]). The light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0055] and Page 8 – Compound 1-7):
PNG
media_image8.png
388
371
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
156
322
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X is O;
Y is N;
L1 is a single bond;
Ar1 is a phenyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C6 aryl; and
Ar2 is a naphthyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C10 aryl group.
The reference discloses that an organic light emitting device comprising this compound results in a lowered driving voltage and increased luminous efficiency as well as lifetime (Abstract).
Given that both Ito et al and Lee et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices, and given that Ito et al does not explicitly prohibit additional host compounds in the light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of particular host compound as taught by Lee et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in light emitting layer disclosed by Ito et al in order to improve the emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Ito et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, each Y is N.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Ito et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, L1 is a single bond.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Ito et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, L1 is a single bond.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Ito et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, Ar1 is a phenyl group and Ar2 is a naphthyl group.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Ito et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, Ar1 is a phenyl group and Ar2 is a naphthyl group.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Ito et al and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Lee et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
388
371
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in the present claims.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al (JP 2000012229, see English language translation attached to previous Office Action) in view of Shriver et al (see pages of Inorganic Chemistry, Second Edition, attached to previous Office Action) and Lee et al (US 2020/0203623).
Regarding claim 1, Maki et al discloses an organic electroluminescent element, i.e. an organic light emitting device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer disposed between the anode and cathode ([0029]). The light emitting layer comprises the following dopant compound ([0031]-[0032] of translation and JP 2000012229 - Page 11 – Compound 25):
PNG
media_image10.png
346
310
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
L2 is a phenylene group;
L3 and L4 are single bonds;
Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl groups; and
the integer n is zero (0), i.e. R is hydrogen.
In the compound disclosed by reference the linking group L2 is a phenylene; however, the phenylene lining groups is not substituted by deuterium as recited in the present claims.
Shriver et al discloses that the physical and chemical properties of isotopically substituted molecules are usually very similar. However, when deuterium (D) is substituted from H, this substitution results in increases in boiling points and bond enthalpies (Pages 374-375).
In light of this teaching, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound disclosed by Maki et al to include deuterium, i.e. substitute H for D on any of the aromatic rings including the linking phenylene, in order to modify the physical properties of the compound disclosed by Maki et al with a reasonable expectation of success. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and MPEP 2144.09 I.
The combined disclosures of Maki et al and Shriver et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, Maki et al does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as required by the present claims.
Lee et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising first and second electrodes and a light emitting layer disposed between the electrodes ([0014]). The light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0055] and Page 8 – Compound 1-7):
PNG
media_image8.png
388
371
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
156
322
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X is O;
Y is N;
L1 is a single bond;
Ar1 is a phenyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C6 aryl; and
Ar2 is a naphthyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C10 aryl group.
The reference discloses that an organic light emitting device comprising this compound results in a lowered driving voltage and increased luminous efficiency as well as lifetime (Abstract).
Given that both Maki et al and Lee et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices, and given that Maki et al does not explicitly prohibit other compounds in the light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of particular compounds as taught by Lee et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in light emitting layer disclosed by Maki et al in order to improve the emission efficiency of the organic light emitting device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Maki et al , Shriver et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, each Y is N.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Maki et al , Shriver et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, L1 is a single bond.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Maki et al , Shriver et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, L1 is a single bond.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Maki et al , Shriver et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, Ar1 is a phenyl group and Ar2 is a naphthyl group.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Maki et al , Shriver et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Lee et al, Ar1 is a phenyl group and Ar2 is a naphthyl group.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Maki et al , Shriver et al, and Lee et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Lee et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
388
371
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in the present claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that neither Ito or Lee, alone or in combination teaches or suggests the elements of claim 1. However, as discussed in the rejections maintained above, Ito discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
238
335
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where: L2 is a single bond; L3 and L4 are single bonds; Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl groups; and the integer n is zero (0), i.e. R is hydrogen.
Alternatively, as discussed above, Ito et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
238
335
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not correspond to the recited compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
242
320
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (1a) of the reference ([0030]):
PNG
media_image7.png
104
192
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar1 can be a phenanthryl ([0034] – Formula 2A), Ar2 is a naphthyl group ([0055]); n is one (1) ([0033]); Ar3 is a phenyl group ([0058]); and Ar4 is a phenanthrene groups ([0034] – Formula 2A). Accordingly, the disclosure of Ito et al encompasses the recited compound.
Regarding Lee et al, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following host compound ([0055] and Page 8 – Compound 1-7):
PNG
media_image8.png
388
371
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
156
322
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where: X is O; Y is N; L1 is a single bond; Ar1 is a phenyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C6 aryl; and Ar2 is a naphthyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C10 aryl group.
Applicants argue that a compound where a triphenylamine joined by a single bond to a phenanthrene does not correspond to one specific compound recited in claim 1 as amended. However, firstly it should be noted that claim 1 also recites a general formula for the claimed compound, i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
174
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where L2 is a single bond; phenylene; or phenylene substituted with at least one deuterium, L3 and L4 are a single bond, Ar3 and Ar4 are each independently phenyl, biphenyl, naphthyl, phenanthrenyl, phenylphenanthrenyl, triphenylenyl, phenylnaphthyl or naphthylphenyl, each of which is independently unsubstituted or substituted with at least one deuterium, R is deuterium, and n is an integer of 0 to 9. In the instant case as discussed in the rejections above, Ito discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
238
335
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where L2 is a single bond; L3 and L4 are single bonds; Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl groups; and the integer n is zero (0), i.e. R is hydrogen.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
238
335
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound does not correspond to the recited compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
242
320
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula (1a) of the reference ([0030]):
PNG
media_image7.png
104
192
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar1 can be a phenanthryl ([0034] – Formula 2A), Ar2 is a naphthyl group ([0055]); n is one (1) ([0033]); Ar3 is a phenyl group ([0058]); and Ar4 is a phenanthrene groups ([0034] – Formula 2A). Accordingly, the disclosure of Ito et al encompasses the recited compound.
Applicants argue that Ito does not specify the bonding position of the amine to the phenanthrene, and the linkers between the phenanthrene and the amine vary widely; therefore, the features of Formula 2 would not have obvious form Ito. However, firstly it is noted that claim 1 recited Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where L2 is a single bond; phenylene; or phenylene substituted with at least one deuterium, L3 and L4 are a single bond, Ar3 and Ar4 are each independently phenyl, biphenyl, naphthyl, phenanthrenyl, phenylphenanthrenyl, triphenylenyl, phenyInaphthyl or naphthylphenyl, each of which is independently unsubstituted or substituted with at least one deuterium, R is deuterium, and n is an integer of 0 to 9. In the instant case as discussed in the rejections above, Ito discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
238
335
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where L2 is a single bond; L3 and L4 are single bonds; Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl groups; and the integer n is zero (0), i.e. R is hydrogen.
Furthermore, while the reference does not disclose the exact bonding position of the phenanthrene, phenylene, and naphthyl groups, it is significant to note that by symmetry phenanthrene has five (5) bonding positions, naphthyl two (2) ; and phenylene four (4). In other words, t it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any of limited bonding positions of these substituents and thereby arrive at the instantly claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success,
Applicants argue that Ito teaches a compound have 3 or 4 skeletons selected from a benzene skeleton, a naphthalene skeleton, and a condensed aromatic hydrocarbon skeleton with 3 or more rings is preferred as a co-host (first host) of the monoamine derivative as recited n claim 23 of the reference. However, it is noted that while the reference may prefer such co-hosts, the general teaching of the reference is only that a first host is present in the light emitting layer, see [22] in Paragraph [0041]. As such, the reference does not place any limitations on the first host, i.e. the reference does not prohibit the first host from any type of host compound including the host compound disclosed by Lee et al. To that end it is noted that “nonpreferred disclosures can be used. A nonpreferred portion of a reference disclosure is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims.” In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960).
Applicants argue that Maki fails to disclose the enumerated compounds recited in as-amended claim 1. However, it is noted that claim 1 recited Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where L2 is a single bond; phenylene; or phenylene substituted with at least one deuterium, L3 and L4 are a single bond, Ar3 and Ar4 are each independently phenyl, biphenyl, naphthyl, phenanthrenyl, phenylphenanthrenyl, triphenylenyl, phenyInaphthyl or naphthylphenyl, each of which is independently unsubstituted or substituted with at least one deuterium, R is deuterium, and n is an integer of 0 to 9. In the instant case, as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image10.png
346
310
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
191
266
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where: L2 is a phenylene group; L3 and L4 are single bonds; Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl groups; and
the integer n is zero (0), i.e. R is hydrogen.
Applicants argue that Shriver fails to disclose the enumerated compounds recited in as-amended claim 1. However, while the reference does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Shriver is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the physical and chemical properties of isotopically substituted molecules are usually very similar. However, when deuterium (D) is substituted from H, this substitution results in increases in boiling points and bond enthalpies, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. If the secondary reference contained all the features of the present claimed invention, it would be identical to the present claimed invention, and there would be no need for secondary references.
Applicants argue that Maki discloses Compound 25 as a dopant, and claim 1 requires that the recited compound of Chemical Formula 2 is present in the light emitting together with the compound of Chemical Formula 1 as a co-host. However, it is noted that any recitation of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as a co-host is conspicuous by its absence in the present claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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, 8:00AM – 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
Prosecution Insights