DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 03/05/26.
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
The objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/18/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 9 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/18/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 5 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 Non-Final Rejection filed 11/18/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 10 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 Non-Final Rejection filed 11/18/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2021/132651 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/18/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1-8, 12, and 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 (WO 2021/132651 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/18/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
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 (WO 2021/132651 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/18/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
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 Hoag et al. (US 2003/0198829 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/18/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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)(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 1-8, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2021/132651 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, 12, 14-16, 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]).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021/132651 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.
Lee et al. discloses the composition of Claim 1 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection. 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.
Claim 17 is rejected 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).
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.
Lee et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device of Claim 16 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection. Lee et al. discloses the use of a wide variety of fluorescent dopant materials for emission in the blue ([0944]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose a boron-based dopant material.
Nishimura 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 ([0087]); specific examples of boron compounds include the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
110
274
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0090]). Nishimura et al. discloses such dopant materials are combined with anthracene derivative host materials ([0087]). It would have been obvious to incorporate any of the boron-based compounds as disclosed by Nishimura et al. into the light-emitting layer as disclosed by Lee et al. (as dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Nishimura et al., which is directed to viable blue-emitting dopant materials for use in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, thus rendering the incorporation predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues on page 36 that “[t]here is no disclosure of the emission wavelength of the light emitting layer in Lee.” The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that Lee et al. discloses the use of “blue fluorescent emitting” materials as dopant materials which can be used in the light-emitting layer ([0930], [0944]). The use of such blue emissive materials (i.e., compounds that inherently emit at wavelengths between ~400-500 nm) would thus include dopant materials with λmaxs within the range as recited in Claim 1 by the Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 38-40 with respect to the deficiencies of Hoag eta l. have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
19. 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.
20. 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
Prosecution Insights