DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/02/2022, 01/24/2024, 02/29/2024, 05/20/2024, 04/15/2025, and 09/10/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 08/02/2022. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 08/02/2022, the claims, abstract, and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 10-12, 15-32, and 36 have been amended.
Claims 5, 7-9, 13-14, 33-35, and 37 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-12, 15-32, and 36 are pending in the application,
of which claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
In a requirement for election of species dated 10/29/2025, Applicant was required to choose from,
A compound of Formula (1) wherein Cz is represented by:
Species I: formula (1-a)
Species II: formula (1-b)
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species II: formula (1-b) in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not shown a burden in a search and a search has not been extended. This is not found persuasive because, as evidenced below, the two species represent separate inventive effort by inventors (see MPEP 808.02).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Species II, drawn to claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 15-32 and 36, is examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-018229, filed on 02/05/2020.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The words “anthracenylene” and “anthracenyl” are misspelled in paragraphs [0128] and [0130] respectively.
The letters, numbers, and/or bonds in the chemical structure given in paragraphs [0244] through [0270] are illegible. Please correct these structures so all letters, numbers, and/or bonds are clearly visible. See the example below.
PNG
media_image1.png
76
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that this example is non-limiting and there may be other structures that require correction. Please check all formulae to make sure they are not unclear. Applicant may wish to make these structures clearer by increasing font size, making the font bold, and/or making the lines thicker.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “anthracenyl” has been misspelled as “anthrasenyl”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
With respect to claim 11, the claim contains formulae which do not further limit the subject matter of parent claim 10. For example, none of formulae (1-b-11) through (1-b-14) of claim 11 can be derived from formula (1-b-2) of claim 10. Also, formulae (1-b-11) and (1-b-13) of claim 11 do not further limit formula (1-b-1) of parent claim 10. For these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
In continuing examination, only formulae (1-b-12) and (1-b-14) will be considered and they are being considered as derived from parent formula (1-b-1) only.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected 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.
With respect to claim 11, the claim contains formulae which do not further limit the subject matter of parent claim 10. For example, none of formulae (1-b-11) through (1-b-14) of claim 11 can be derived from formula (1-b-2) of claim 10. Also, formulae (1-b-11) and (1-b-13) of claim 11 do not further limit formula (1-b-1) of parent claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 15-32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (WO 2018/056645 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Cho discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a cathode, an anode, and an organic layer between the electrodes and the organic layer includes a light emitting layer comprising an anthracene host (paragraphs 100 and 101), such as compound H-82 (paragraph 120), which is pictured below, and an electron transporting layer (an electron buffer layer, paragraph 155 and Figure 1) comprising a compound represented by formula (1), which may also be represented by formula (11) (paragraphs 35 and 65), which is also pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
324
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
286
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In formula (11), Ar3 and Ar4 are a C6 aryl (phenyl) group (paragraphs 17 and 45), Ar5 and Ar6 are hydrogen atoms (see for example, compounds B-57 and B-58 on page 13), n is 2, and the two L are independently a naphthylene and phenylene group (see for example, compounds B-38, B-39, and B-41).
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic electroluminescent device with improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 203), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Such a compound meets the requirements of instant formula (1) when Y2 is nitrogen and Y1 is CR and R is a hydrogen atom, Ar1 and Ar2 are both an unsubstituted aryl having 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl), L1 and L2 are both a single bond, R1 through R6 are hydrogen atoms, one of L3 and L4 is a C6 arylene (phenylene) group, and the other is a single bond, n is 1, and Cz is represented by Formula (1-b).
In Formula (1-b), R31 through R34 and R37 and R38 are hydrogen atoms, and R35 and R36 are joined to form an annulated 6-membered ring (benzene).
Compound H-82 meets the requirements of instant formula (10) when R109 and R110 are represented by formula (31), and the remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
In formula (31) of R109, L101 is a single bond, and Ar101 is a heterocyclic group having 17 ring atoms (2-benzo(b)naphtho(2,3-d)furan).
In formula (31) of R110, L101 is a single bond and Ar101 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
Cho teaches that organic electroluminescent devices of the invention have high efficiency and/or long lifespan and can be used to produce a display system or a lighting system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combination of a compound of formula (11) in an electron transporting layer and compound H-82 in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device in order to produce a display or lighting system with high efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Cho.
With respect to claim 2, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cho also teaches that n is 3 (paragraph 23), and the three L are independently a naphthylene and two phenylene groups (see for example, compound B-40).
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic electroluminescent device with improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 203), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Such a compound meets the requirements of the instant claim when L3 and L4 are each a phenylene group.
With respect to claim 3, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and the unsubstituted arylene group of L3 or L4 is a phenylene group and the other of L3 and L4 is a single bond, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cho also teaches that in Formula (11) Ar5 can be a C6 aryl (phenyl).
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic electroluminescent device with improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 203), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Such a compound meets the requirements of the instant claim when at least one of R31 through R38 is a C6 aryl.
With respect to claim 6, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and none of R31 through R38 are a substituent, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and Compound A is represented by Formula (1-b-1), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, Cho teaches the device of claim 10, as discussed above.
Cho also teaches that variable L may be a substituted arylene (paragraph 18) and examples of substituents include a 13-membered heteroaryl (paragraph 40, lines 13-14), and examples of heteroaryl include carbazolyl (paragraph 39).
Such a modification produces instant formula (1-b-12).
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent, such as a 9-carbazole, from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic electroluminescent device with improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 203), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cho also teaches that Ar3 and Ar4 may be a biphenyl group (paragraphs 45 and 17, see also compounds B-8, B-10, B-12, B-24, etc).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claims when one or both of L1 and/or L2 is a phenylene.
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent, such as a biphenyl group, from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic electroluminescent device with improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 203), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 17, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and L1 and L2 are single bonds, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and Ar1 and Ar2 are phenyl groups, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 20, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and the compound has a molecular weight of 650 or more.
With respect to claim 21, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cho also teaches that the compound may be substituted with deuterium (paragraph 40, line 9).
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent, such as a deuterium atom, from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic electroluminescent device with improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan characteristics (paragraph 203), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 22, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and the host material B is represented by formula (10-1) for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 23, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and the host material B is represented by formula (10-3) when one of Ar101A is a substituted aryl group of 6 carbon atoms and the other Ar101A is a unsubstituted aryl group of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) as pictured above.
With respect to claims 24 through 27 and 29, Cho teaches the device of claim 1 and the host material B is represented by formula (10-4) and formula (10-6) when X11/X12 is an oxygen atom, R63 is a single bond to L101, R68 and R67 are an annulated benzene ring, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 28, Cho teaches the device of claim 26, and R68 and R67 are joined to form an annulated benzene ring of instant formula (10-8-1) or (10-4A-1), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 30, Cho teaches the device of claim 24, and the host material B, as discussed above.
Host material B, which is pictured and discussed above is derived from Cho formula 30 (paragraph 101), which is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the anthracene core to the benzo(b)naphtho(2,3-d)furan moiety.
Given the general formula and teachings of Cho, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of host material B in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host in the emission layer of the electroluminescent device of Cho and possess the properties taught by Cho. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of the instant claim when one of R70 through R73 is a single bond to L101.
-With respect to claims 31 and 32, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and Ar101 is a single bond, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 36, Cho teaches the device of claim 1, and Cho also teaches that the device comprises a phosphorescent dopant material (paragraph 121).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a phosphorescent dopant in the emitting layer of the device as taught by Cho.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 25, and 27-29 of copending Application No. 17/759,980 (herein after referred to as ‘980) (reference application) in view of Cho et al. (WO 2018/056645 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Specifically,
The compound of instant independent claim 1 is met by the compound of claim 1 and the device of claims 27 through 29 of ‘980.
The definitions of the linking groups of instant claims 2 and 3 are met by the definitions of the linking groups of claims 2 and 3 of ‘980.
The definitions of R31 to R38 of instant claims 4 and 6 are met by the definitions of R31 to R38 of claims 4 and 5 of ‘980.
The limitations of formulae (1-b-1) and (1-b-2) of instant claim 10 are met by the limitations of formulae (1-b-1) and (1-b-2) of claim 7 of ‘980.
The limitations of formulae (1-b-11), (1-b-12), (1-b-13), and (1-b-14) of instant claim 11 are met by the limitations of formulae (1-b-11), (1-b-12), (1-b-13), and (1-b-14) of claim 8 of ‘980.
The definitions of the linking groups of instant claims 15-17 are met by the definitions of the linking groups of claims 10-12 of ‘980.
The definitions of Ar1 and Ar2 of instant claims 18 and 19 are met by the definitions of Ar1 and Ar2 of claim 13 of ‘980.
The molecular weight limitation of instant claim 20 is met by claim 1 of ‘980.
The deuterium atom of instant claim 21 is also required by claim 25 of ‘980.
However, the instant claims require an anthracene-derivative host material of instant formula (10), which is not included in application 17/759,980.
Cho discloses an organic electroluminescent device having high efficiency and/or long lifespan by including a specific composition, which overlaps in scope with the compounds of instant claim 1 and of the compound of claim 1 of ‘980, as discussed above.
Cho also teaches that the emitting layer comprises an anthracene-derivative host material which overlaps in scop with instant formula (10), as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compound of claim 1 of ‘980 with an anthracene-derivative host of instant formula (10) in order to obtain an organic electroluminescent device with high efficiency and/or long lifespan, as taught by Cho.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al. (KR 102019923 B1) – teaches relevant compounds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786