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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment dated 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 21, and 23 are amended and claims 13-19 and 22 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, and 23-26 are pending.
The rejections of claims 13-19 and 22 as set forth in the previous Office action are each moot because the claims are cancelled.
The objections to claims 7-8 and 10 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejections of claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 20-21 and 23-26 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 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10, and 13-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. CN-110845421-A and the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. CN-110845421-A as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13-23, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xing et al. CN-110128318-A and the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. CN-110128318-A as applied to claim 21 and further in view of D'Andrade US-20020197511-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. CN-110845421-A as set forth in the previous Office action is updated and maintained.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on page 11 of the reply dated 05/05/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. CN-110845421-A as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 11 that in claim 1, amendments have been made to Ar², L, R, and R¹ - R⁴, such that the claimed compounds are structurally very different from any compound disclosed or suggested by Ma and the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to make major structural design changes to arrive at any claimed compound, and would not have had motivation to combine, nor any reasonable expectation of being able to successfully synthesize the claimed compounds.
Examiner's response – This is not found persuasive because the proposed modification is both encompassed by the general formula of Ma and only incorporates a feature that is present in further exemplified compounds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the proposed modification to compounds 64 and 69, which would result in a compound as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123. Furthermore, the prior art reference does not appear to criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the proposed modification.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 8, it is suggested that the claim be amended such that "phenyl" is replaced with "phenylene" to use language consistent with claim 1; and
in claim 21 it is suggested that the claim be amended to read "wherein the organic layer comprises a light emitting layer according to claim 1" or the like for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itoi et al. WO-2020209293-A1 (hereinafter "Itoi-293" and see machine translation referred to herein as "Itoi-293-MT").
The applied reference has at least a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26, Itoi-293 discloses an organic EL element, which is an electronic device, having the structure: ITO (130) / HI-1 (5) / HT-1 (85) / EBL-1 (5) / BH-1: BD-19 (25,96%: 4%) / aET-6 (10) / bET-6 (15) / 19 LiF (1) / Al (80) (Itoi-293-MT, page 78 of 95, lines 18-20). The compound bET-6 has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
167
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Itoi-293, page 185) and is a compound of the claimed formulae (1) and (2) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group;
m is 1 and n is 0;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is a methyl group substituted with one further methyl group; and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itoi et al. US-20220165965-A1 (hereinafter "Itoi-965").
The applied reference has at least a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26, Itoi-965 discloses an organic EL element, which is an electronic device, having the structure: ITO (330) / HI-1 (5) / HT-1 (85) / EBL-1 (5) / BH-1 BD-19 (25,96%:4%) / aET-6 (10) / bET-6 (15) / LiF (2) / Al (80) (Itoi-965 ¶ [1092]-[1093] and TABLE 53). The compound bET-6 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
208
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0999], page 309) and is a compound of the claimed formulae (1) and (2) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group;
m is 1 and n is 0;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is a methyl group substituted with one further methyl group; and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itoi et al. US-20220165964-A1 (hereinafter "Itoi-964").
The applied reference has at least a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26, Itoi-965 discloses an organic EL element, which is an electronic device, having the structure: ITO (430) / HI-1 (5) / HT-1 (85) / EBL-1 (5) / BH-1 BD-19 (25,96%:4%) / aET-6(10) / bET-6 (35) / LiF(1) / Al (80) (Itoi-964 ¶ [0841]-[0842] and TABLE 53). The compound bET-6 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
208
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0746], page 148) and is a compound of the claimed formulae (1) and (2) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group;
m is 1 and n is 0;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is a methyl group substituted with one further methyl group; and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itoi et la. US-20220173334-A1 (hereinafter "Itoi-334").
The applied reference has at least a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26, Itoi-334 discloses an organic EL element, which is an electronic device, having the structure: ITO (0.30) / HI-1 (5) / HT-1 (85) / EBL-1 (5) / BH-2:BD-19 (25, 96%:4%) / aET-6 (80) / bET-6 (15) / LiF (1) / Al (80) (Itoi-334 ¶ [0854]-[0855] and TABLE 47). The compound bET-6 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
208
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0765], page 191) and is a compound of the claimed formulae (1) and (2) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group;
m is 1 and n is 0;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is a methyl group substituted with one further methyl group; and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itoi et al. US-20220173335-A1 (hereinafter "Itoi-335").
The applied reference has at least a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26, Itoi-335 discloses an organic EL element, which is an electronic device, having the structure: ITO (130) / HI-1 (5) / HT-1 (85) / EBL-1 (5) / BH-2:BD-19 (25, 96%:4%) / aET-6 (10) / bET-6 (15) / LiF (1) / AI (80) (Itoi-335, ¶ [1819]-[1820] and TABLE 47). The compound bET-6 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
208
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [1732], page 329) and is a compound of the claimed formulae (1) and (2) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group;
m is 1 and n is 0;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is a methyl group substituted with one further methyl group; and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itoi et al. WO-2020209310-A1 (hereinafter "Itoi-310" and see machine translation referred to herein as "Itoi-310-MT").
The applied reference has at least a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, 23, and 25-26, Itoi-310 discloses an organic EL element, which is an electronic device, having the structure: ITO (130) / HI-1 (5) / HT-1 (85) / EBL-1 (5) / BH-2: BD-19 (25,96%: 4%) / aET-6 (10) / bET-6 (15) / 22 LiF (1) / Al (80) (Itoi-310-MT, page 80 of 103, lines 21-23). The compound bET-6 has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
165
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Itoi-310, page 197) and is a compound of the claimed formulae (1) and (2) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group;
m is 1 and n is 0;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted naphthyl group;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is a methyl group substituted with one further methyl group; and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom.
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 1-4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. CN-110845421-A (hereinafter "Ma-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Ma-MT").
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 20-21, and 23-26, Ma teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising at least one organic layer that comprises a light emitting layer and an electron transport layer between two electrodes, wherein the electron transport layer contains an electron transport compound of a formula I or II (Ma-MT, page 3 of 8, lines 28-30; Ma-MT, page 2 of 8, lines 4-5; and Ma-MT, page 5 of 8, lines 14-17), wherein the light emitting layer comprises a fluorescent or phosphorescent dopant material (Ma-MT, page 5 of 8, lines 23-25). Ma teaches that using the electron transport compound significantly reduces the driving voltage of the organic electroluminescent device and improves the luminous efficiency and service life, so as to improve the practicability of the device (Ma-Mt, page 4 of 8, lines 1-7). Ma teaches specific examples of the electron transport compound of formula I or II including compound 64
PNG
media_image4.png
289
177
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and compound 69
PNG
media_image5.png
289
158
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Ma-Mt, page 2 of 8, lines 30-31 and Ma-CN, page 14).
Ma does not specifically disclose a compound of the claimed formula (1) where the position corresponding to the claimed Ar2 is an unsubstituted biphenylene group or an unsubstituted naphthyl group. For example, in the compounds 64 and 69 of Ma, the position corresponding to the claimed Ar2 is a phenyl substituted with a heterocyclic group. However, Ma teaches that ring A may be a C6 to C60 aryl (Ma-MT, page 2 of 8, lines 14-15) and teaches exemplary compounds wherein this position is a phenyl group, including compounds 6 and 7 (Ma-CN page 10).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heterocyclic at the position corresponding to the ring A in the general formula of Ma in compounds 64 and 69 with a phenyl group, because Ma teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the electron transport layer of the device of Ma and possess the benefits as described above taught by Ma. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compounds 64 and 69 of Ma are each a compound of the claimed formula (1) and formula (2) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group;
m is 1 and n is 0;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is a methyl group substituted with one or two further methyl groups; and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom.
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Ma does not specifically disclose a compound of the claimed formula (3). For example, modified compounds 64 and 69 are each a positional isomer of a compound of the claimed formula (3) wherein the position corresponding to Ar1 is one position further from the benzimidazole group. However, the general formula of Ma encompasses wherein the phenyl group is substituted at either the position corresponding to Ar1 in modified compounds 64 and 69 or at the position in the claimed formula (3) (see Formula I of Ma on page 9 of Ma-CN and described on page 2 of 8 of Ma-MT).
Given the general formulae and teachings of Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of any one of modified compounds 64 and 69 wherein the position corresponding to Ar1 is one position further from the benzimidazole group. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Ma in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the electron transport layer of the device of Ma and possess the properties of significantly reduced driving voltage and improved the luminous efficiency and service life, taught by Ma. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP § 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP § 2144.09 II.
The modified compounds 64 and 69 of Ma meet the claimed formula (3).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights