DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received on October 24, 2025. Claims 1, 24, 39, 41, 42, 44, 49-53, and 55 were amended. Claims 2-22, 27, 29, 31-37, 43, 45-48, 54, and 56-65 are cancelled claims. Note that applicant states claims 29 and 54 are still pending in the October 24, 2025 remarks section, but the claim set shows these claims are cancelled. Claims 1, 23-26, 28, 30, 38-42, 44, 49-53, and 55 are pending.
Previous rejection(s) over now cancelled claims are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 31-37, 56-62, and 65 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1) in view of Kosuge et al. (US 2015/0295188 A1) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claims.
The provisional rejection of claims 1, 21-30, 38-44, 49-55, 63 and 64 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 32-35, 37, 38, 41-44, 46, 48, 50-53, 55, 56, 58-61, 63, 66, and 72-85 of co-pending Application No. 17/642,224 (reference application) is withdrawn due to requirements of deuteration limitations in co-pending 17/642,224.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed October 24, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon Fujita et al. as set forth in the last Office action because:
The experimental results are directed to specifically formed device structures whereas the claimed devices are of a much broader scope. The examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The example devices have first and second light emitting layers using a very specific dopant whereas no dopant is expressly claimed in the instant application, the example light emitting layers comprise a very specific percentage of dopant whereas no dopant amount is expressly claimed, and the two light emitting layers are of specific, differing thicknesses whereas the claims are not limited to the light emitting layers having these thicknesses or thickness relationship to one another. It is unclear that unexpected, superior results have been clearly demonstrated with respect to the claimed devices merely requiring a layer with formula 1 compound next to a layer with formula 2 compound. It is unclear that any improved results shown among the example devices may be attributed solely to selection of formula 1 and 2 material adjacent one another.
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.
Claims 1, 23-26, 28, 30, 38-42, 44, 49-53, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 24, Fujita et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent element comprising light emitting layers comprising a pyrene-based compound (Formula 2 per instant first compound) and an anthracene-based compound (Formula 1 per instant second compound) (see abstract, par. 22-62):
PNG
media_image1.png
114
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
210
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
More specifically, a light emitting element may comprise multiple light emitting layers including a light emitting layer closer to the anode comprising a compound of pyrene-based formula 2 and a light emitting layer closer to the cathode may include a compound of anthracene-based formula 1 (see Table 2 on page 172 and par. 64).
Regarding the “second compound”, anthracene-based formula 1 may have groups selected as recited (see par. 93-140). Formula 1 is the following (see par. 93-97):
PNG
media_image3.png
244
164
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Further regarding the anthracene compound (second host) of claims 1 and 24, at least group “A” group is taught (see par. 98) where Y may be selected as O per instant X1a or X1b containing groups (see par. 111). Also, a Fujita formula 1 anthracene derivative X group may be aryl per instant Ar202 (see par. 95). Regarding claims 23, an “A” group may be an unsubstituted A-1 group (see par. 133).
PNG
media_image4.png
76
282
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 1, 24-26, 28, and 30, the anthracene compound may include the following formula A groups (see par. 29) with bonding to any portion of the ring groups:
PNG
media_image5.png
186
308
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
122
280
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 38-40 and 49-51, Fujita Formula 1 compounds may have “X” group directly bonded per at least the claimed single bond.
Regarding instant Ar202 and claims 41, 42, 52, and 53, X groups may include naphthyl-containing 1-X1 or 1-X2 (see par. 22) where Ar1 or Ar2 are aryl groups (see par. 24) such as phenyl or naphthyl or X may be Ar3 (see par. 22-24) which is aryl such as phenyl or naphthyl.
Regarding claims 44 and 55, Ar4 groups may be hydrogen or aryl (see par. 22, 25) such as phenyl or naphthyl.
The light emitting layers may be laminated upon one another (see par. 64).
Regarding instant formula 1, a pyrene-based compound of formula 2 may include an Ar group that is selected as aryl or heteroaryl that may be substituted by aryl (see par. 15-20). Examples of aryl group include at least fluorenyl, phenyl, biphenyl, and naphthyl (see par. 158) and examples of heteroaryl include carbazolyl, dibenzofuranyl, and dibenzothienyl (see par. 159).
Fujita does not appear to show an example device having two emitting layers where compounds for the functional layers were selected in combination including the above discussed anthracene compounds comprising the specifically selected groups within the defined formula 1 for the light emitting layer closer the cathode in combination with a pyrene light emitting layer; however, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have selected materials of the reference to form a layered device having two emitting layers as described above wherein the resultant compounds and layers would also meet the device limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising materials as disclosed within Fujita with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As stated above, the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed October 24, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon Fujita et al. as set forth in the last Office action because:
The experimental results are directed to specifically formed device structures whereas the claimed devices are of a much broader scope. The examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The example devices have first and second light emitting layers using a very specific dopant (the same one in both light emitting layers) whereas no dopant is expressly claimed, the example light emitting layers comprise a very specific percentage of dopant whereas no dopant amount is expressly claimed, and the two light emitting layers are of specific and differing thicknesses whereas the claims are not limited to the light emitting layers having these thicknesses or thickness relationship to one another. It is unclear that unexpected, superior results have been clearly demonstrated with respect to the claimed devices merely requiring a layer with formula 1 next to a layer with formula 2. It is unclear that any improved results of lifetime and/or efficiency may be attributed solely to selection of formula 1 and 2 “host” material in layers adjacent one another. The examples relied on by applicant as evidence of unexpected results do not provide an adequate basis to support a conclusion that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claims will behave in the same manner, and therefore, the evidence is not persuasive of nonobviousness because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. (See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
Regarding the statement about claim 24 at the bottom of page 33 of the remarks, the office notes Fujita et al. teaches direct bonding of groups to the anthracene core and bonding may be at any location of the Y-containing groups (see at least Fujita paragraph 29).
Conclusion
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786