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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 07/22/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 8 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-5 and 8 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0013430 A1), and of claim 10 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0364694 A1), are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-10 were originally filed.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 8 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 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
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichihashi et al. (WO 2015/182547 A1, using the provided translation for references), as evidenced by Enomoto et al. (Enomoto, R.; Hoshi, M.; Oyama, H.; Agata, H.; Kurokawa, S.; Kuma, H.; Uekusa, H.; Murakami, Y., 2021, van der Waals solid solution crystals for highly efficiency in-air photon upconversion under subsolar irradiance, Mater, Horiz. 8, 3449).
With respect to claim 1, Ichihashi discloses an organic electroluminescent device (Example 1, paragraph 0206) comprising an anode (ITO), a hole transport area (HAT-CN/HT-1), an emissive layer (H-1/D-1), an organic functional layer (electron transport layer, Compound 15, paragraph 0208), an electron transport area (an electron injection layer, LiF), and a cathode (Al) (paragraphs 0206-0207).
The compound of the organic functional layer (Compound 15) and the compound of the emission layer (H-1) are pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 15 is derived from Ichihashi formula (8) (paragraph 0080) when HAr is a terpyridinyl group. Ichihashi also teaches that HAr is represented by a group of [Chemical 8] (paragraph 0084), such as the substituted triazine below (paragraph 0087).
PNG
media_image3.png
154
108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner is interpreting the combination of emissive host H-1 in a light emitting layer and modified compound 15 in an adjacent layer to meet the requirements of the instant claim. Support for this interpretation comes from the use of the above modified compound 15 as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given in compound 16 on page 46 of the specification dated 04/07/2025. Support for the use of host compound H-1 comes from Enomoto who provides the evidence that compound H-1 (9-(2-naphthyl)-10-[4-(1-naphthyl)phenyl]anthracene, ANNP) has a refractive index of 1.81 (see page 5 of the provided Electronic Supplementary Information). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Ichihashi reads on the claims.
Ichihashi is silent to the refractive index and HOMO energy level of the compounds. However, these properties are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as a material of the electron transport layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Ichihashi, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ichihashi was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Ichihashi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ichihashi being a lack of the aforementioned triazine 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 electron withdrawing substituent from the finite list of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with high carrier mobility and high electron acceptability, which can be incorporated into a layer with improved sublimation property, vapor deposition stability, film stability and high glass transition temperature and decreased crystallinity, and a light emitting element that can be driven at low voltage with high light-emitting efficiency (paragraph 0068), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 2, Ichihashi teaches the device of claim 1 and the organic function layer is in direct contact with the emissive layer, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the combination of emissive host H-1 and modified compound 15 to produce a composition that meets the difference in refractive indices requirement of the instant claim. Support for this interpretation comes from the use of the above modified compound 15 as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given in compound 16 on page 46 of the specification dated 04/07/2025. Support for the use of host compound H-1 comes from Enomoto who provides the evidence that compound H-1 (9-(2-naphthyl)-10-[4-(1-naphthyl)phenyl]anthracene, ANNP) has a refractive index of 1.81 (see page 5 of the provided Electronic Supplementary Information). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Ichihashi reads on the claims.
Ichihashi is silent to the refractive indices of the compounds. However, this property is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used in the emissive and electron transport layers of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Ichihashi, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ichihashi was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Ichihashi teaches the device of claim 1, and Ichihashi also teaches that the emissive layer is a blue emissive layer (see column 4 of Table 1), which comprises the fluorescent blue dopant D-1 (see column 3 of Table 1).
Examiner is interpreting modified compound 15 to meet the refractive index requirement of the instant claim. Support for this interpretation comes from the use of the above modified compound 15 as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given in compound 16 on page 46 of the specification dated 04/07/2025. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Ichihashi reads on the claims.
Ichihashi is silent to the refractive index of the compounds described. However, this property is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used in an electron transport layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Ichihashi, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ichihashi was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 5, Ichihashi teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting modified compound 15 to meet the HOMO energy level requirement of the instant claim. Support for this interpretation comes from the use of the above modified compound 15 as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given in compound 16 on page 46 of the specification dated 04/07/2025. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Ichihashi reads on the claims.
Ichihashi is silent to the HOMO energy level of the described compounds. However, this property is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used in an electron transport layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Ichihashi, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ichihashi was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 8, Ichihashi teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting modified compound 15 to meet the electron absorptivity relationship requirement of the instant claim. Support for this interpretation comes from the use of the above modified compound 15 as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given in compound 16 on page 46 of the specification dated 04/07/2025. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Ichihashi reads on the claims.
Ichihashi is silent to the electron absorptivity of the electron withdrawing group and the fluoranthrene group of the described compounds. However, this property is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used in an electron transport layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Ichihashi, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ichihashi was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 10, Ichihashi teaches the device of claim 1, and Ichihashi also teaches that the electron transport layer may be a single layer or a plurality of layers which may be in contact with the cathode of the light emitting layer (paragraph 0142, lines 1-3) and may include an electron injection layer (paragraph 0158).
In this respect, Ichihashi teaches one or more electron transport layer (an auxiliary electron transport layer and an electron transport layer), and an electron injection layer.
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 use the fluoranthrene compound in one or both electron transport layers of a multilayered electron transport area in a device with the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of achieving a layer with improved sublimation property, vapor deposition stability, film stability and high glass transition temperature and decreased crystallinity, and a light emitting element that can be driven at low voltage with high light-emitting efficiency (paragraph 0068), as taught by Ichihashi.
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 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