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 November 11, 2025. Claims 1 and 45 were amended. Claims 62 and 63 are new. Claims 2-44 and 46-61 are canceled. Claims 1, 45, 62, and 63 are pending.
Previous rejections over now canceled claims 2-44 and 46-61 are withdrawn due to the cancellations.
The rejection of claims 32, 47, 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the claim cancellations.
The provisional rejection of claims 38, 40-42, 56, 58, and 61 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 21-24, 26-30, 38, and 42-50 of co-pending Application No. 17/642,221 (reference application) is withdrawn due to the claim cancellations.
The provisional rejection of claims 1, 22-24, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 38, 40-42, 44, 45, 47, and 55-61 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 50, 52, 55, 58-60, 63, 66, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, and 85 of co-pending Application No. 17/642,224 (reference application) is withdrawn due to claim cancellations and also because of specific substituent requirements within claims of co-pending 17/642,224.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed November 11, 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1) as set forth in the last Office action because:
BH2-21 and BH2-b differ by more than the fluorene groups, respectively, on the two compounds. BH2-21 has a naphthyl group while BH2-b has a phenyl group as the other group. Accordingly, the comparison does not conclusively show the “inventive” fluorene group of BH2-21 provides an unexpected result over BH2-b having a spiro-fluorene as the compounds differ by more than the fluorene groups.
BH2-21 and BH2-a differ by more than the respective fluorene group versus phenyl-naphthyl group. BH2-21 has a naphthyl group while BH2-a has a phenyl group as the other group on the anthracene core. The comparison does not show the “inventive” fluorene group of BH2-21 provides an unexpected result over BH2-a having a phenyl-naphthyl group as the compounds differ by more than the fluorene/phenyl-naphthyl moieties, respectively.
Further, the examples are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of recited first and second compounds. Also, the device structure of the examples is very specific (e.g., layer thicknesses, dopant amount, and dopant compound) whereas the scope of recited devices is much broader.
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, 45, and 62 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
.
A Fujita formula 1 anthracene derivative X group may be aryl (see par. 95). More specifically, an aryl as Ar1, Ar2, or Ar3 may be at least fluorenyl or phenanthryl among others (see par. 13, 22-24, 29, 31, 38, 53, 93-104). The teaching of fluorenyl as a group encompasses the recited bonding positions (see par. 24, 38, 102, and see representative spirofluorene group within compound 1-122 on page 18). Regarding claim 45, Fujita Formula 1 compounds may have X directly bonded per at least the claimed direct bond with the linking group as single bond. Fujita Ar4 may be hydrogen or aryl (see par. 13). A fluorenyl is not required to have an additional fused ring group. A fluorenyl group may be at least a substituted fluorenyl such as shown within compound 1-122 on page 18. Regarding recited aryl groups, see at least par. 100-102 listing at least phenanthryl group and see at least group 1-X1 in par. 98 and groups with terminal Ar1 or Ar2 groups in par. 100. X of Fujita formula 1 may be Ar3, which may be naphthyl substituted with an aryl (see par. 102-103) and the substituent aryl may be at any bonding location including a corresponding location to instant R67.
Regarding instant first host, 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). With respect to claim 62, note that L101 is not required to be present as mx can be zero.
Regarding the device structures of independent claim 1, the light emitting layers may be laminated upon one another (see par. 64).
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; 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.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0221747 A1).
Fujita et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Fujita et al. devices comprise a dopant material (see abstract), but it is not seen where the specific dopant of claim 63 is described. In analogous art, Takahashi et al. teaches dopant material (see par. 190) according to formulas 1 or 2 (see par. 8-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an emitting dopant as taught by Takahashi et al. in a device requiring an emitting dopant as taught by Fujita et al., because one would expect the dopant taught by Takahashi et al. to be similarly useful as an emitting dopant in an electroluminescent device structure of Fujita et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As noted above, the declaration is not considered sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection over Fujita. BH2-21 and BH2-b differ by more than the respective fluorene groups. BH2-21 has a naphthyl group while BH2-b has a phenyl group. The comparison does not show the “inventive” fluorene group of BH2-21 provides an unexpected result over BH2-b having a spiro-fluorene as the compounds differ by more than the fluorene groups.
BH2-21 and BH2-a differ by more than the fluorene group versus phenyl-naphthyl group. BH2-21 has a naphthyl group while BH2-a has a phenyl group as the other group on the anthracene core. The comparison does not show the “inventive” fluorene group of BH2-21 provides an unexpected result over BH2-a having a phenyl-naphthyl group as the compounds differ by more than the fluorene/phenyl-naphthyl moieties, respectively.
Further, the example is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of recited first and second compounds. Also, the device structure of the examples is very specific (e.g., layer thicknesses, dopant amount, dopant compound) whereas the scope of recited devices is much broader.
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.
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