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.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment dated 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and 21 are amended and claims 5-6, 9, and 11-12 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, and 13-26 are pending.
The objections to claims 1, 5, and 7-8 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 14 and 21-26 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 is respectfully maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. CN-109879812-A and the rejection of claims 3 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. CN-109879812-A as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly cited Ma et al. CN-110845421-A and Xing et al. CN-110128318-A (cited on the IDS of 02/11/2022).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on page 11 of the reply dated 10/15/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 14 and 21-26 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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Regarding claim 14, the applicant argues on page 11 that "the substituted aryl group" recited in lines 6-7 of the claim has antecedent basis in "the substituted or unsubstituted aryl group" recited in line 2 of the claim.
Examiner's response – The issue noted with claim 14 in the rejection of record is not a lack of antecedent basis. Rather, the issue is that the claim appear to recite two definitions for the substituted aryl group first, one lines 2-6 ("the substituted... aryl group… is selected from a phenyl group, a biphenyl group…and a 9,9'-spiorbifluorenyl group") and second on lines 6-7 ("the substituted aryl group is selected from a 9,9-dimethylfluorenyl and a 9,9-diphenylefluorenyl"). Thus, the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the second narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Applicant's argument – Regarding claim 21, the applicant argues on page 11 that "at least one layer of the organic layer" has sufficient antecedent basis and claim 22 makes clear that the compound may be in a layer other than the light emitting layer.
Examiner's response – The applicant does not point to where there is antecedent basis for "at least one layer of" the organic layer in claim 21 or a claim that claim 21 depends from and therefore there appears to be a lack of antecedent basis for this claim term. As a result, it remains unclear whether or not the compound is required to be in the light emitting layer or if it may be in another layer of the device.
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the Applicants' arguments on pages 11-12 of the reply dated 10/15/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 11-12 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein L is an unsubstituted arylene group selected from a phenylene group, a biphenylene group, and a naphthylene group and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of newly cited Ma et al. CN-110845421-A and Xing et al. CN-110128318-A (cited on the IDS of 02/11/2022).
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 7, it is suggested that "the" before "Ar2" in line 2 be removed for ease of reading;
in claim 8, it is suggested that the claim be amended to use language consistent with the other claims, such as "L is selected from the group consisting of an unsubstituted phenylene group and an unsubstituted biphenylene group" for ease of reading; and
in claim 10, it is suggested that the claim be amended to use language consistent with claim 7, such as "[t]he compound according to claim 1, wherein L is selected from the following groups:" for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, and 13-26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 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 "L is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 50 ring carbon atoms", and the claim also recites "L is… selected from the group consisting of a phenylene group, a biphenylene group, and a naphthylene group" which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is 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. Put another way, can L be a group other than a phenylene group, a biphenylene group, and a naphthylene group as long as it is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 50 ring carbon atoms sure as an unsubstituted pyrenylene group?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to read "L is selected from the group consisting of an unsubstituted phenylene group, an unsubstituted biphenylene group, and an unsubstituted naphthylene group".
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10, and 13-26 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, 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 14 recites the broad recitation "the aryl group of the substituted… aryl group having 6 to 50 ring carbon atoms for R1 to R4 is selected from a phenyl group, a biphenylyl group…. a fluorenyl group, and a 9,9'-spirobifluorenyl group…", and the claim also recites "the substituted aryl group is selected from a 9,9'-dimethylfluorenyl and group a 9,9'-diphenylfluorenyl group" which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is 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. Put another way, can the substituted aryl group having 6 to 50 ring carbon atoms for R1 to R4 be other than a 9,9'-dimethylfluorenyl and group a 9,9'-diphenylfluorenyl group or not?
For purposes of examination, the claim scope will be interpreted as the broader recitation.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites "an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode" and later in the claim "at least one layer of the organic layer comprises the compound according to claim 1." The claim does not recite any layers other than the organic layer and the light emitting layer and therefore it appears that there is insufficient antecedent basis for a "layer of the organic layer" in the claim. Due to this, it is unclear whether or not the compound is required to be in the light emitting layer or if it may be in another layer of the device.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the compound may be in a layer between the anode and the cathode of the device other than the light emitting layer.
Claims 22-26 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 21.
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, 8, 10, and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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, 8, 10, and 13-26, Ma discloses 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 discloses examples of the electron transport compound of formula I or II including compound
PNG
media_image1.png
289
177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and compound 69
PNG
media_image2.png
289
158
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Ma-Mt, page 2 of 8, lines 30-31 and Ma-CN, page 14).
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 a phenyl group that is further substituted;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 2 carbon atom (a ethyl group); and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom.
Therefore, the device comprising the compound of Ma meets claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10, and 13-26.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xing et al. CN-110128318-A (hereinafter "Xing-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Xing-MT").
It is noted that Xing et al. CN-110128318-A is cited on the IDS of 02/11/2022.
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13-23, and 25-26, Xing discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising at least one organic functional layer between the anode layer and cathode layer, wherein the organic functional layer includes an organic luminescent layer and an electron transport layer, wherein the electron transport layer contains a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon derivative of a general formula (1) (Xing-MT, page 2 of 11, lines 25-29 and Xing-MT, page 2 of 11, lines 3-5), wherein the dopant may be fluorescent (Xing-MT, page 6 of 1, lines 6-9). Xing discloses that the compound is capable of reducing operating voltage and improving luminous efficiency and device life (Xing-MT, abstract and Xing-MT, page 3 of 11, lines 4-7). Xing discloses compound of general formula (1) including compound A10
PNG
media_image3.png
258
151
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Xing-CN, page 12), compound A14
PNG
media_image4.png
309
165
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 13), and compound A22
PNG
media_image5.png
260
150
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 13).
Compounds A10, A14, and A22 of Xing are each a compound of the claimed formula (1) and formula (2) or formula (3) wherein:
Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group or an unsubstituted naphthyl group;
m is 1 and n is 0 or m is 0 and n is 1;
Ar2 is a phenyl group that is further substituted;
L is an unsubstituted phenylene group;
R is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 or 2 carbon atoms (an ethyl group or a methyl group); and
R1 to R4 are each a hydrogen atom or R2 or R3 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 5 ring atoms (a pyridyl group) and the remaining of R1 to R4 are each hydrogen.
Therefore, the device comprising the compound of Ma meets claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13-23, and 25-26.
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 3 and 7 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 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, 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 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 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).
Regarding claim 7, 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 (1) where the position corresponding to the claimed Ar2 is selected from the groups listed in claim 7. 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 meet the claim 7 wherein Ar2 is
PNG
media_image6.png
116
381
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. CN-110128318-A (hereinafter "Xing-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Xing-MT") as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of D'Andrade US-20020197511-A1 (hereinafter "D'Andrade").
Regarding claim 24, Xing discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 21.
Xing does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the emitting layer comprises at least one phosphorescent compound. However, Xing teaches the light emitting layer comprising a fluorescent dopant, as discussed above.
D'Andrade teaches that phosphorescent dopants may be combined with fluorescent light emitting dyes in an organic light emitting device (¶ [0038]) and that multiple dopants may be used in order to tune the color of emission from a light-emitting layer (¶ [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Xing by forming the light emitting layer comprising the at least one phosphorescent compound in addition to the fluorescent dopant, based on the teaching of D'Andrade. The motivation for doing so would have been to tune the color of emission from a light-emitting layer, as taught by D'Andrade.
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.
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