DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 5, 2026 has been entered.
The claim amendment received June 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 24, 26, 28, 30, 41, and 52 were amended. Claims 2-22, 25, 27, 29, 31-37, 43, 45-48, 54, and 56-65 are canceled. Claims 66 and 67 were added. Claims 1, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 38-42, 44, 49-53, 55, 66, and 67 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 23-26, 28, 30, 38-42, 44, 49-53, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1) as specifically set forth in the office action mailed February 5, 2026 is withdrawn due to the amendment.
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 24, 26, 28, 30, 49-53, 55, and 67 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.
Independent claim 24 recites “at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a compound represented by a formula (5) below and a compound represented by a formula (6) below”, but no formula (5) or formula (6) is set forth in the claim. Accordingly, claim 24 and claims depending from claim 24 are considered indefinite.
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, 38-42, 44, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, 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 claim 1, at least group “A” group is taught (see par. 22, 98, 110) where Y may be selected as O per instant X1a containing group (see par. 111):
PNG
media_image4.png
118
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
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_image5.png
76
282
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 38-40, Fujita Formula 1 compounds may have “X” group directly bonded per at least the claimed single bond.
Regarding instant Ar202 and claims 41 and 42, 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 claim 44, 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 claim 66, each layer of the EL element may be selected within a range of 2 nm to 5000 nm (see par. 443 and see par. 264 with respect to plurality of layers). Accordingly, two light emitting layers may be selected such that a first light emitting layer is less than that of a second layer.
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).
Regarding claim 1 third and fourth dopant amounts, Fujita et al. teaches at least 2% is a suitable dopant concentration for light emitting layers (see Table 1, page 171). Regarding light emitting layer thickness, Fujita et al. teaches 12.5 nm is a suitable light emitting layer thickness (see Table 1, page 171).
With respect to claim 1 dopant material of formula (6), Fujita et al. teaches at least compound 3-139 as a dopant material (see par. 505 and Table 1 on page 171):
PNG
media_image6.png
180
258
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
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 as discussed above 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 June 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Tables 47 and 48 show unexpected results and that the amended claim 1 addresses the Office’s concerns. The office submits the examples in Tables 47 and 48 are directed to devices with very specific anthracene compounds, pyrene compounds, and boron-containing dopant. The instant claims are not as limited and accordingly, the examples are not considered commensurate with the breadth of instantly claimed subject matter. 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).)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee, Kyung Hyung, Jun Yeob Lee, and Hyung Yoon Oh. "P‐184: Boron Derivatives as Deep Blue Fluorescent Materials for High Efficiency and Long Lifetime." SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers. Vol. 50. No. 1. 2019.
The reference discusses using anthracene host material with a boron derivative dopant and is considered relevant to the state of the art.
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
Prosecution Insights