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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/08/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2021/132651 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 05/22/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1-8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2021/132651 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 05/22/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021/132651 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 05/22/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021/132651 A1) in view of Nishimura et al. (US 2010/0314644 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 05/22/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021/132651 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2022/0376183 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2021/132651 A1 (herein referred to as “Lee et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all page and paragraph numbers referenced herein correspond to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 12, Lee et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: substrate (2), anode (3), organic layer (4), light-emitting layer (5), organic layer (6), and cathode (10) (Figure; [0481]); the light-emitting layer comprises a first host material, second host material, and dopant material; the mass ratio of the first to second host materials range from (preferably) 40:60 to 60:40, including 50:50 formed via methods such as vacuum deposition ([0932], [0951], [0972]). Lee et al. discloses that the first host material is represented by formula (1), while the second host material in represented by formula (2), with one or more selected from the first and second host materials comprising at least one deuterium atom (Abstract; [0009]-[0014], [0482]):
PNG
media_image1.png
250
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0015]) and
PNG
media_image2.png
250
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0026]). The following embodiments are disclosed for the first and second host materials, respectively:
PNG
media_image3.png
240
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 31) such that R1-8 = deuterium, R9 = substituted aryl group (deuterium-substituted naphthyl), and R10 = Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-1 (with p = 1, L1 = direct bond, and Ar = substituted aryl group (deuterium-substituted naphthyl)) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1; L11-12 = direct bond and Ar11-12 = substituted aryl group (deuterium-substituted naphthyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-A and
PNG
media_image4.png
278
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 50) such that Y1-8 = deuterium, Y9 = substituted aryl group (deuterium-substituted phenyl), and Y10 = Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-1 (with q = 1, L2 = direct bond, and A = B = substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring (deuterium-substituted benzene)) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2. Lee et al. further discloses the use of fluorescent dopant materials based on pyrene and styrylamine derivatives (among others) for emission in the blue (i.e., compounds that inherently emit at wavelengths between ~400-500 nm) ([0944]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose a boron-based dopant material.
Hatakeyama et al. discloses viable dopant materials for blue emission (i.e., compounds that would inherently have a λmax = ~400-500 nm) which includes boron complexes ([0002], [0119]); an embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image5.png
174
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 37) such that t3-5 = 1, R3-5 = hydrogen and T1-2 = unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula D-1 which emits in the blue (with λmax = 458 nm) ([0583]). Hatakeyama et al. discloses such dopant materials are combined with anthracene derivative host materials ([0120]); the use results in an “excellent” organic EL device. It would have been obvious to the compound as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer as disclosed by Lee et al. (as dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hatakeyama et al., which is directed to viable blue-emitting dopant materials for use in the light-emitting layer, the use of which results in an excellent organic EL device.
Regarding Claims 3, 7, and 8, it is the position of the Office that the composition as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) comprising compounds 1-52 and 2-26 as the first and second host materials, respectively, would inherently read on the Equations and physical limitations as recited in the claims. Evidence is provided by the fact that both compounds are fully encompassed by the Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 for the inventive composition; in fact, Lee et al.’s compounds 1-52 and 2-26 are exactly identical to the Applicant’s preferred embodiments as shown on pages 21 and 61 of the present national phase publication.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee et al. discloses that the mass ratio of the first to second host materials range from (preferably) 40:60 to 60:40, including 50:50 (such that (C1-C2)/C1 ~ 0) formed via methods such as vacuum deposition ([0932], [0951], [0972]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the physical parameters of the deposition. Nevertheless, it is the position that such conditions could be easily produced by one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation is provided by the fact it has been long established that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see also MPEP 2144.05). Lee et al. clearly discloses various methods of thin film formation, including “a known method such as a vacuum deposition process” ([0951]); even a target is prepared for (vacuum) co-deposition wherein the mass ratio of the first and second host materials are equal (such that C1 ~ C2) ([0972]). Hence, it is the position of the Office that using such a known method (wherein deposition rates and base pressures are well-known and fundamental parameters which are tuned in the vacuum deposition equipment used in the art), the production of the recited composition during the normal course of experimentation would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee et al. discloses that its first host material corresponds to the following formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
258
404
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0484]) where R1A-8A = independently hydrogen or substituent such as aryl ([0486]-[0488]); another embodiment is disclosed (wherein the compound represented by formula (I) “is not limited” to such examples):
PNG
media_image7.png
258
394
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 32). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-B. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound 1-66 as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) such that R1’-7’ = hydrogen, L11-13 = direct bond, Ar12 = unsubstituted aryl group (naphthyl), and Ar11 = Ar13 = unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-B. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the connection point of the phenyl group to the anthracene, producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; further motivation exists, as the production merely involves the selection of one possible embodiment selected from a high finite list (in regards to the possible position of one of the phenyl groups as envisioned from the scope of Lee et al.’s general formula), thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-12 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
