DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received December 23, 2025. Claims 1 and 10-13 were amended. Claims 1-13 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-13 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to insert specific carbon number ranges preceding recited groups as definitions for each of A21 to A24, R1 to R4, Z1, and Z2. It is seen where more specific groups are discussed for “R” groups in the original disclosure (for example, page 540 of the published application), but it is not seen where all the added definitions are clearly and fully supported describing each of A21 to A24 and Z1 and Z2 groups. Claim 1 is considered to comprise new matter (dependent claims are included in the rejection as they depend from claim 1). Claim 8 contains similar amendments and is considered to comprise new matter.
The remarks filed 12/23/2025 do not appear to specifically point out where support for these amendment can be located in the original disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2020/0052212 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Tasaki et al. teaches organic electroluminescent elements with hosts and dopants (see abstract). Note that throughout the Tasaki et al. reference, the definition of “hydrogen atom” may include deuterium (see par. 60). A dopant material may be according to formula D2 or more specific D2a (see par. 13, 22, 175):
PNG
media_image1.png
150
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
174
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The compound structures of formulas D2 or D2a may be asymmetrical with respect to a line of symmetry passing through B and the a ring as the defined variables are selected individually. With further respect to instant formula 2 and instant claims 1, 8, 9, and 13, note that bonding between groups may be present in the dopants between a group Ra and a ring a or b (see par. 162, 173). The D2a formula may contain at least the same groups as the below instant specific formula 2 compound from instant claim 13 in the instant claim set (12/23/2025, page 120) when Ra as phenyl bonds to ring b, Rb is phenyl substituted with tert-butyl, Rf is methyl, Ri is tert-butyl (see par. 167-178):
PNG
media_image3.png
90
104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to anthracene derivatives as host material and instant formulas 1-1 to 1-3, Tasaki et al. teaches the following formula (19) and again note that the definition of “hydrogen atom” may include deuterium (see par. 60):
PNG
media_image4.png
256
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see par. 26-29).
With further respect to instant formula 1-1 per instant claims 1, 5, and 10, the following compound BH1-5 is taught (see par. 463) and compounds may be deuterated as the definition of “hydrogen atom” may include deuterium (see par. 60):
PNG
media_image5.png
156
290
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
With further respect to formula 1-2 per instant claims 1, 6, and 11, an Ar group of the anthracene formula (19) may be a 6 ring atom group (see par. 189) per the instant 1-2 phenyl group and compounds may be deuterated as the definition of “hydrogen atom” may include deuterium (see par. 60).
With further respect to instant formula 1-3 per instant claims 1, 7, and 12, the following compound BH1-6 is taught (see par. 463) and compounds may be deuterated as the definition of “hydrogen atom” may include deuterium (see par. 60):
PNG
media_image6.png
198
280
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to instant claims 2 and 3, the definition of “hydrogen atom” may include deuterium (see par. 60) and may be selected in an amount of 30% or greater.
With respect to instant claim 4, the Tasaki “first compound” of the light emitting layer may be “at least one” selected from anthracene formula (19), which includes two (see par. 183-184).
While an example device is not shown in Tasaki with one or more compounds identical to instant compounds 1-1 to 1-3 in combination with a compound identical to instant formula 2 in an example light emitting layer, 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 material of the reference formula definitions as described above, wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims and to use the compounds to form a light emitting layer in a light emitting device as taught by Tasaki. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Tasaki et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant suggests on page 131 of the remarks that experimental results demonstrate an asymmetric structure of Formula 2 provides superior and advantageous results. In response, the office submits the few examples selected for discussion on page 132 of the remarks are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claimed compounds and are not sufficient to clearly demonstrate unexpected, superior results for the claimed subject matter. Applicant only sets forth one symmetrical compound, DB-2, for comparison. Many of the “inventive” compounds of Table 1 differ by more than symmetry and are not directly comparable to establish asymmetry as a superior feature. The closest comparison to BD-2 is considered to be BD-5:
PNG
media_image7.png
156
162
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
154
162
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
The driving voltage of the example with BD-2 is 3.82 V and efficiency is 6.96 Cd/A while the example including BD-5 is 3.77 V driving voltage and 7.03 Cd/A efficiency. The differences are modest. It is unclear there is a statistically significant and unexpected improvement. Furthermore, the single BD-2 compound is not considered commensurate with the fair teachings of the prior art and the single BD-5 compound is not commensurate with the breadth of claimed compounds. MPEP 716.02(d) sets forth, “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).” The office further notes there are examples with “inventive” compounds shown in Table 1 that have poorer efficiencies than “comparative” BD-2 and among each of the “inventive” compounds driving voltage is only slightly less than for “comparative” BD-2. MPEP 716.02 sets forth “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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