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 .
The preliminary amendment dated December 5, 2025 is entered. Claims 33 and 36 were amended. Claims 1-36 as filed in the December 5, 2025 claim listing are pending and under consideration.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification contains numerous chemical structures that are blurry and/or not legible. Note that this is evidenced by the fact the corresponding USPGPUB document was printed with several occurrences of question marks where the structures were not clear enough for printing (for instance, see published paragraph 95 with the following question mark symbol):
PNG
media_image1.png
34
44
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Clearer structures should be submitted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, 9, 14, 22, 24, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5, 7, 9, 14, 22, 24, and 31 contain chemical structures that are not printed clearly. Structure have blurry or broken lines and/or blurry heteroatoms.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10-14, 18-25, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1).
Tasaki et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising two emitting layers and comprising a compound with at least one deuterium atom (see abstract). With respect to instant independent claim 18, a device may include a substrate (see par. 764). With respect to instant claims 1 and 18 “first host”, deuterated anthracene derivatives are taught (see par. 258, 296, 340). Preferred dopant material is a pyrene amine derivative that may include hydrogen as a substituent (see par. 342-373) per instant claims 1 and 18 “first dopant”. Note that throughout the Tasaki et al. disclosure, “hydrogen atom” means an atom may include isotopes such as a deuterium (see par. 25-26). A device may include a polycyclic amine compound as “hole transporting” region material between a first electrode and an emitting layer (see at least HT2 compound, par. 762, and par. 677, 700-707, 752-753) per the required electron blocking layer of instant claims 1 and 18.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, anthracene derivatives are clearly taught that are fully deuterated (see par. 258).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, both the anthracene and pyrene derivatives discussed above may have hydrogens and note that throughout the Tasaki et al. disclosure, “hydrogen atom” means an atom may include isotopes such as a deuterium (see par. 25-26), which would include having deuterium upon core groups of the derivatives.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 21, and 22, at least anthracene derivatives of par. 258 are taught including the following compound of par. 258, top page 43, which is identical to a compound listed in claims 5 and 22:
PNG
media_image2.png
168
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 23, 24 at least pyrene derivatives of par. 373 are taught including the following compound of par. 373, right column page 299, which is identical to the first listed compound of claims 7 and 24 when the compound further includes deuterium(s) – noting that throughout the Tasaki et al. disclosure, “hydrogen atom” means an atom may include isotopes such as a deuterium (see par. 25-26):
PNG
media_image3.png
156
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 8 and 25, in the hole transporting region (see par. 677) a material may include an amine compound with phenyls and polycyclic groups (see par. 702 and HT1 or HT2 materials of page 618).
Regarding claims 10 and 27, a hole blocking layer may be added (see par. 677, 686) as a part of an electron transporting region where material of the region may include at least azine and benzimidazole derivatives (see par. 734). Regarding claims 11, 12, 28, and 29, at least the following compound is taught for this region, which is the same as instant compound E2 of claims 12 and 29 and is within the claims 11and 28 general formula 7:
PNG
media_image4.png
230
300
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see par. 762, top left of page 619).
Regarding claims 13, 14, 30, and 31, material of an electron transport region may include the following compound “ET”, which is identical to instant claims 14 and 31 compound F1 and is within the formula 9 of instant claims 13 and 30:
PNG
media_image5.png
128
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see par. 762, page 619).
While Tasaki et al. does not exemplify a device comprising deuterated anthracene and deuterated pyrene derivatives in combination with an electron blocking layer as specifically recited by instant independent claims 1 and 18, given the teachings of the Taskai et al. 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 have selected materials for layers of a device as discussed above, wherein the resultant materials and layered structure would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. 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.
Claims 9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0244047 A1).
Tasaki et al. is relied upon as set forth above for the rejections of claims 1, 8, 18, and 25.
As noted above regarding claims 8 and 25, Taskai et al. teaches in the hole transporting region (see par. 677) a material may include an amine compound with phenyls and polycyclic groups (see par. 702 and HT1 or HT2 materials of page 618). It is not seen where Tasaki et al. specifically teaches the amine compounds listed in claims 9 and 26. In analogous art, Lee et al. teaches the following monoamino compound 2-58 of formula 2 for a layer in a region between a hole transporting layer and an emitting layer (see par. 47, 60), which is the same as instant compound H6 shown in instant claims 9 and 26 (see par. 64, page 27):
PNG
media_image6.png
256
306
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an amine material used in a hole transport region as taught by Lee et al. for the same region of a device structure as taught by Tasaki et al., because the compound as taught by Lee et al. would be expected to be useful for the same purpose with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 15-17 and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0060825).
Tasaki et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
While Tasaki teaches using pyrene derivatives as emitting dopant, anthracene derivatives as host, electron blocking layer (i.e., hole transport zone), and hole blocking layer (i.e., electron transport zone) as discussed above in forming a device, Tasaki et al. does not specifically describe device layers as recited comprising emitting layers separated by charge generation layer(s) and including a color filter. In analogous art, Song et al. teaches forming white light emitting diodes comprising multiple light emitting units (each including an emitting layer and “blocking” layers – i.e. electron transport zones and hole transport zones – see at least Song et al. Figures 1 and 3) separated by charge generation layer and including a color filter (see abstract and figure 7). (Note that a color filter may also be considered a “color conversion layer”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a Tasaki et al. device using pyrene derivative emitting dopant, a host anthracene derivative, and respective blocking/transporting layers as discussed above to form an emitting unit and to have further included a charge generation layer separating multiple units and to have included a color filter as taught by Song et al. to arrive at a device structure the same as claimed, because the features are taught as forming a device with a desirable full color display of light. One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising the materials and layer structure as taught by Tasaki et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Claims 15-17 and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2019/0305227 A1).
Tasaki et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
While Tasaki et al. teaches using deuterated pyrene derivative dopant, deuterated anthracene derivative host, electron blocking layer (i.e., hole transport zone), and hole blocking layer (i.e., electron transport zone) as discussed above in forming a light emitting device, Tasaki et al. does not specifically describe device layers as recited comprising emitting layers separated by charge generation layer(s) and including a color filter. In analogous art, Yoon teaches that an organic electroluminescent device can has a structure wherein the organic electroluminescent device wherein the organic light-emitting layer may include a vertical stack of a first light emission sub-stack ( ST1 ), a second light emission sub-stack ( ST2 ), a third light emission sub-stack ( ST3 ), a first charge-generating layer ( CGL1 ), and a second charge generating layer ( CGL2 ) in between the sub-stacks (Yoon par. 82, Fig. 2), wherein the light emitting layers may render any of blue, red, green, or yellow (par. 55-56). Additionally, Yoon teaches an organic light emission display device including a color filter that absorbs light generated from the organic electroluminescent device wherein the color filter patterns that absorb the red, green, and blue light may be disposed separately on a pixel basis, wherein each of these color filter patterns may overlap with a corresponding organic light - emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device that emits light having a corresponding wave length and by adopting the color filter, and thereby allow the organic light emission display device to render a full color range (Yoon par. 14). (Note that a color filter may also be considered a “color conversion layer”.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these display component features as taught by secondary Yoon and thereby arrive at the claimed device, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I.(A). One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising the materials and layer structure as taught by Tasaki et al. and Yoon with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7, 10-24, and 27-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of US Patent No. 12,439,816. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the deuterated anthracene hosts in the instant claims overlap in scope with the deuterated anthracene hosts as shown in Formula 1 in claim 4 of the ‘816 patent. The pyrene dopant in the instant invention is shown as Formula 3 in claim 1 of the ‘816 patent. An electron blocking layer is claimed in '816 claim 1, which can include a polycyclic aryl group (see claims 6-7). The tandem stack device structure of the instant claims is the same as claims in the ‘816 patent.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compounds to form a device, which are both disclosed by the patent and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-14, 18-25, and 27-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of US Patent No. 12,520,716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the deuterated anthracene hosts in the instant claims overlap in scope with the deuterated anthracene hosts as shown in Formula 1 in claim 4 of the ‘716 patent. The pyrene dopant in the instant invention is shown as Formula 3 in claim 5of the ‘716 patent. ‘716 claims a specific polycyclic aryl containing amine derivative per an electron blocking layer.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use compound which is both disclosed by the patent and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yao, J., Zhang, Y. X., Tang, C. W., & Dong, S. C. (2024). Cumulative lifetime enhancement effect of deuteration in blue organic light‐emitting diodes. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 32(2), 51-58.
The reference is not prior to the instant application, but discusses effects of deuteration on anthracene derivatives (see Figure 1, page 52). Devices were made with pyrene amine dopant (see Figure 2 (A) and (B), page 53). The reference is considered relevant to the state of the art.
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