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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 14 October 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 22, 25, 27, and 29-30 have been amended.
Claims 7, 9, 15, 21, 31, and 37 are cancelled.
Claims 39-47 are new.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, 16-20, 22-30, 32-36, 38-47 are pending.
The amendments to claims 14 and 20 have overcome the rejections of claims 14, 16, 19-20, 22, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (WO 2018101491 A2—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nakano”) set forth in the last Office action. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendments to claims 1, 14, and 20 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-30, and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2021/0257552 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi et al. (US 2021/0257552 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 13, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2021/0257552 A1) (hereafter “Choi”) set forth in the last Office action. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendments to claims 1 and 14 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 19, 25-30, and 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 34, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) in view of Ikenaga et al. (WO 2016/158363 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ikenaga”) set forth in the last Office action. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 14, 16, 19-20, 22, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (WO 2018101491 A2—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nakano”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 14, 16, 19-20, 22, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (WO 2018101491 A2—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nakano”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 19, 25-30, and 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 34, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) in view of Ikenaga et al. (WO 2016/158363 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ikenaga”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 regarding the rejections of claims 20 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments have overcome the rejections.
However, for the reasons outlined below, the claims continue to be rejected over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”).
Examiner’s Note
This Office action is being made non-final because the previously made rejection of claim 23 as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) was made in error. As outlined below claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”). This rejection is not necessitated by amendment.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”).
Regarding claims 20 and 22: Qiu discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode and containing a light emitting layer comprising the compounds shown below {(p. 12, Embodiment 14: Compounds B15 and A14 of Qui are used as host materials for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B15), (p. 5, Compound A14)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
1458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
502
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where Compound B15 and Compound A14 are present at a mass ratio of 10:3 {p. 12, Embodiment 14}. Compound B15 can be equated with the instant Formula (20), and Compound A14 of Qiu can be equated with the instant Formula (40). Thus, in the mixture, the total mass MT of the first compound and the second compound and the mass M1 of the first compound have a ratio greater than 0.7, satisfying Numerical Formula 4A of the current claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 43-44: Qiu teaches all of the features with respect to claim 20, as outlined above.
The compounds of Qiu do not comprise any deuterium atoms.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}. Li teaches that the compounds can be fully deuterated {paragraphs [0025] and [0027]-[0028]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compounds of Qiu such that the compounds of Qiu comprised one or more deuterium atoms, based on the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maximize the number of C-D bonds in order to maximize the thermal stability of the compound to produce a fully deuterated compound, as taught by Li.
Claim(s) 20, 22-24, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 103066215 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Qiu”).
Regarding claims 20 and 22-23: Qiu discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode and containing a light emitting layer comprising the compounds shown below {(p. 13, Embodiment 27: Compounds B17 and A27 of Qui are used as host materials for the device of Qui.), (p. 7, Compound B17), (p. 5, Compound A15)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
488
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
400
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where Compound B17 and Compound A27 are present at a mass ratio of 10:2 {p. 12, Embodiment 15}. Compound A27 of Qiu can be equated with the instant Formula (40).
Qiu does not teach a specific device in which a compound having the structure of the instant formula (20) is used instead of Qiu’s compound B17 shown above.
However, Qiu teaches that the devices of Qiu comprise a host material in the light emitting layer having a compound represented by structural formula A of Qiu and a compound represented by structural formula B of Qiu {p. 2, final paragraph}.
Qiu teaches the compound shown below as an alternative to compound B17, shown above {p. 6, final paragraph}.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
1458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Qiu such that the compound A28 of Qiu shown above as used as the compound of structural formula A of Qiu in the light emitting layer of the device of Qiu, based on the teaching of Qiu. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of A28 of Qiu would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified compounds of structural formula A of Qiu), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Compound B17 can be equated with the instant Formula (20), and Compound A27 of Qiu can be equated with the instant Formula (40). Thus, in the mixture, the total mass MT of the first compound and the second compound and the mass M1 of the first compound have a ratio greater than 0.7, satisfying Numerical Formula 4A of the current claim 20.
Regarding claims 24 and 47: Qiu discloses all of the features with respect to claim 20, as outlined above.
Qiu does not teach a specific device in which a compound having the structure of the instant formula (41) is used instead of Qiu’s compound A27 shown above.
However, Qiu teaches that the devices of Qiu comprise a host material in the light emitting layer having a compound represented by structural formula A of Qiu, shown below {p. 2, final paragraph}.
PNG
media_image5.png
270
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As shown in the structural formula shown above, the compounds of Qiu having the structure of structural formula A of Qiu can have substituents Ar1 or Ar2 linked at any position on the phenyl rings directed bonded to the anthracene core.
Additionally, Qiu exemplifies the compound shown below, comprising an m-phenylene linker, as an alternative to compound A27, shown above {p. 6, final paragraph}.
PNG
media_image6.png
402
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Qiu such that the Compound A27 of Qiu was modified such that the naphthyl substituent was linked by an m-phenylene linker rather than a p-phenylene linker, based on the teaching of Qiu. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of A28 of Qiu would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified compounds of structural formula A of Qiu), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 25-30, 35, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0028015 A1) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, and 35: Kim discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0020]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kim have the structure of Formula 1 of Kim.), (paragraph [0062]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kim are exemplified by Compounds 1 to 109.), (p. 20, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image7.png
452
872
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (20) where: R21 to R28 are hydrogen; L22 is a single bond; Ar22 is naphthyl; L21 is p-phenylene; Ar21 is substituted phenyl.
Kim does not exemplify a mixture comprising the compound shown above including a compound having the structure of the instant formula (10) or the instant formula (20).
However, Kim teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Kim are useful as light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescence device {paragraphs [0075] and [0105]-[0106]}.
Additionally, Kim teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer comprising a light emitting layer {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0077]-[0082]}.
Kim teaches that the light-emitting layer can additionally comprise a host material {paragraphs [0106]-[0108]}. The host material can be an anthracene derivative having the structure shown below {(paragraphs [0108] and [0113]), (p. 36, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image8.png
300
470
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (10) where: R11 to R18 are hydrogen; L11 is a single bond; Ar11 is unsubstituted naphthyl; L12 is m-phenylene; Ar12 is unsubstituted naphthyl.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Kim shown above by using it as the light emitting dopant of the organic electroluminescence device of Kim described above, including the host material of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claims 13 and 45: Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
In an alternative interpretation, the compound of Kim shown below can be interpreted as the compound having the structure of the instant formula (10).
PNG
media_image7.png
452
872
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (10) where: R11 to R18 are hydrogen; L11 is a single bond; Ar11 is naphthyl; L12 is p-phenylene; Ar12 is substituted phenyl.
The compound of Kim shown below can be interpreted as the compound having the structure of the instant formula (20).
PNG
media_image8.png
300
470
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (20) where: R21 to R28 are hydrogen; L22 is a single bond; Ar22 is naphthyl; L21 is m-phenylene; Ar21 is unsubstituted naphthyl.
Regarding claims 14, 16, 25, and 27-30: Kim discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0020]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kim have the structure of Formula 1 of Kim.), (paragraph [0062]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kim are exemplified by Compounds 1 to 109.), (p. 20, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image7.png
452
872
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (30) where: R31 to R38 are hydrogen; L32 is a single bond; Ar32 is naphthyl; L31 is p-phenylene; Ar31 is substituted phenyl.
Kim does not exemplify a mixture comprising the compound shown above including a compound having the structure of the instant formula (20) or the instant formula (30).
However, Kim teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Kim are useful as light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescence device {paragraphs [0075] and [0105]-[0106]}.
Additionally, Kim teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer comprising a light emitting layer {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0077]-[0082]}.
Kim teaches that the light-emitting layer can additionally comprise a host material {paragraphs [0106]-[0108]}. The host material can be an anthracene derivative having the structure shown below {(paragraphs [0108] and [0113]), (p. 36, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image8.png
300
470
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (20) where: R21 to R28 are hydrogen; L21 is a single bond; Ar21 is unsubstituted naphthyl; L22 is m-phenylene; Ar22 is unsubstituted naphthyl.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Kim shown above by using it as the light emitting dopant of the organic electroluminescence device of Kim described above, including the host material of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 46: Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above.
In an alternative interpretation, the compound of Kim shown below can be interpreted as the compound having the structure of the instant formula (20).
PNG
media_image7.png
452
872
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (20) where: R21 to R28 are hydrogen; L21 is a single bond; Ar21 is naphthyl; L22 is p-phenylene; Ar22 is substituted phenyl.
The compound of Kim shown below can be interpreted as the compound having the structure of the instant formula (30).
PNG
media_image8.png
300
470
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (30) where: R31 to R38 are hydrogen; L32 is a single bond; Ar32 is naphthyl; L31 is m-phenylene; Ar31 is unsubstituted naphthyl.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12, and 35: Kim discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0020]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kim have the structure of Formula 1 of Kim.), (paragraph [0062]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kim are exemplified by Compounds 1 to 109.), (p. 20, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image7.png
452
872
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (20) where: R21 to R28 are hydrogen; L22 is a single bond; Ar22 is naphthyl; L21 is p-phenylene; Ar21 is substituted phenyl.
Kim does not exemplify a mixture comprising the compound shown above including a compound having the structure of the instant formula (10) or the instant formula (20).
However, Kim teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Kim are useful as light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescence device {paragraphs [0075] and [0105]-[0106]}.
Additionally, Kim teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer comprising a light emitting layer {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0077]-[0082]}.
Kim teaches that the light-emitting layer can additionally comprise a host material {paragraphs [0106]-[0108]}. The host material can be an anthracene derivative having the structure shown below {(paragraphs [0108] and [0113]), (p. 36, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image9.png
232
534
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (10) where: R11 to R18 are hydrogen; L11 is a single bond; Ar11 is unsubstituted naphthyl; L12 is p-phenylene; Ar12 is unsubstituted naphthyl.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Kim shown above by using it as the light emitting dopant of the organic electroluminescence device of Kim described above, including the host material of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claims 14, 16, 25-30: Kim discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0020]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kim have the structure of Formula 1 of Kim.), (paragraph [0062]: The compounds of the disclosure of Kim are exemplified by Compounds 1 to 109.), (p. 20, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image7.png
452
872
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (20) where: R21 to R28 are hydrogen; L22 is a single bond; Ar22 is naphthyl; L21 is p-phenylene; Ar21 is substituted phenyl.
Kim does not exemplify a mixture comprising the compound shown above including a compound having the structure of the instant formula (10) or the instant formula (20).
However, Kim teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Kim are useful as light-emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescence device {paragraphs [0075] and [0105]-[0106]}.
Additionally, Kim teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, the organic layer comprising a light emitting layer {Fig. 1 as described in paragraphs [0077]-[0082]}.
Kim teaches that the light-emitting layer can additionally comprise a host material {paragraphs [0106]-[0108]}. The host material can be an anthracene derivative having the structure shown below {(paragraphs [0108] and [0113]), (p. 36, the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image9.png
232
534
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (10) where: R11 to R18 are hydrogen; L11 is a single bond; Ar11 is unsubstituted naphthyl; L12 is p-phenylene; Ar12 is unsubstituted naphthyl.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Kim shown above by using it as the light emitting dopant of the organic electroluminescence device of Kim described above, including the host material of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0028015 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 39-40: Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
The compounds of Kim do not comprise any deuterium atoms.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}. Li teaches that the compounds can be fully deuterated {paragraphs [0025] and [0027]-[0028]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compounds of Kim such that the compounds of Kim comprised one or more deuterium atoms, based on the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maximize the number of C-D bonds in order to maximize the thermal stability of the compound to produce a fully deuterated compound, as taught by Li.
Regarding claims 41-42: Kim teaches all of the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above.
The compounds of Kim do not comprise any deuterium atoms.
Li teaches organic light-emitting electronic devices containing conjugated material wherein one or more hydrogens have been replaced with deuterium {abstract}. Li teaches that when deuterium is substituted for hydrogen on organic semiconductors compounds, the deuterated compounds possess improved thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices due to the stronger nature of the C-D bond relative to the C-H bond {p. 2, ¶ [0009], lines 11-13}. Li teaches that the compounds can be fully deuterated {paragraphs [0025] and [0027]-[0028]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compounds of Kim such that the compounds of Kim comprised one or more deuterium atoms, based on the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use materials that provide increased lifetime for the organic electroluminescent devices in which they’re used, based on the teachings of Li. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maximize the number of C-D bonds in order to maximize the thermal stability of the compound to produce a fully deuterated compound, as taught by Li.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16, 19, 25, 27-30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricks et al. (US 2006/0159952 A1) (hereafter “Ricks”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, and 32-33: Ricks discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode and containing a light emitting layer comprising the compounds shown below as host materials {(paragraphs [0172]-[0173] and Table 1: Example 2), (paragraphs [0022]-[0023], Compound A-1), (paragraphs [0025]-[0026], Compound B-9)}.
PNG
media_image10.png
666
510
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
586
550
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Where compound A-1 (above right) has the structure of the instant formula (10) where: R11 to R18 are hydrogen; L11 is a single bond; Ar11 is unsubstituted naphthyl; L12 is m-phenylene; Ar12 is unsubstituted phenyl.
Compound A-1 and B-9 are present as 75% by weight and 25% by weight (respectively) of the total weight of the host material of Ricks {paragraphs [0172]-[0173] and Table 1: Example 2}. Thus, the value of the instant (M1/MT) X 100 is 75.
However, compound B-9 (above left) does not have the structure of the instant formula (20), because the instant R22, R23, R26, and R27 are not all hydrogen.
Ricks does not exemplify a device similar to the device described above except having a second host having the structure of the instant formula (20).
However, Ricks teaches that the second host material of Ricks can alternatively have the structure shown below {paragraphs [0025]-[0026]}.
PNG
media_image12.png
436
512
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (20) where: R22, R23, R24, R26, R27, and R28 are all hydrogen; R21 and R25 are each unsubstituted alkyl; L22 is a single bond; Ar22 is unsubstituted phenyl; L21 is a single bond; Ar21 is unsubstituted phenyl.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Ricks described above by using the compound B-10 shown immediately above as the second host in place of compound B-9 of Ricks, based on the teaching of Ricks. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of Compound B-10 of Ricks would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified second host materials of Ricks), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claims 14, 16, 19, 25, and 27-30: Ricks discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode and containing a light emitting layer comprising the compounds shown below as host materials {(paragraphs [0172]-[0173] and Table 1: Example 2), (paragraphs [0022]-[0023], Compound A-1), (paragraphs [0025]-[0026], Compound B-9)}.
PNG
media_image10.png
666
510
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
586
550
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Where compound A-1 (above right) has the structure of the instant formula (20) where: R21 to R28 are hydrogen; L22 is a single bond; Ar22 is unsubstituted naphthyl; L21 is m-phenylene; Ar21 is unsubstituted phenyl.
Compound A-1 and B-9 are present as 75% by weight and 25% by weight (respectively) of the total weight of the host material of Ricks {paragraphs [0172]-[0173] and Table 1: Example 2}.
However, compound B-9 (above left) does not have the structure of the instant formula (30), because the instant R32, R33, R36, and R37 are not all hydrogen.
Ricks does not exemplify a device similar to the device described above except having a second host having the structure of the instant formula (20).
However, Ricks teaches that the second host material of Ricks can alternatively have the structure shown below {paragraphs [0025]-[0026]}.
PNG
media_image12.png
436
512
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above has the structure of the instant formula (30) where: R32, R33, R34, R36, R37, and R38 are all hydrogen; R31 and R35 are each unsubstituted alkyl; L32 is a single bond; Ar32 is unsubstituted phenyl; L31 is a single bond; Ar31 is unsubstituted phenyl.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Ricks described above by using the compound B-10 shown immediately above as the second host in place of compound B-9 of Ricks, based on the teaching of Ricks. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of Compound B-10 of Ricks would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified second host materials of Ricks), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 34, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricks et al. (US 2006/0159952 A1) (hereafter “Ricks”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikenaga et al. (WO 2016/158363 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Ikenaga”).
Regarding claims 34, 36, and 38: Ricks teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Ricks teaches that the light-emitting layer is formed by vapor deposition where the host materials are vapor deposited from a vapor-deposition source by heating the vapor-deposition source to form the film comprising the film on a substrate {paragraph [0173]}.
Ricks does not teach that compounds of the light emitting layer of the device of Ricks described above are mixed and deposited from one and the same vapor-deposition source.
Ikenaga teaches that when two host materials are comprised in a light-emitting layer, they can be premixed prior to a vapor deposition process {paragraph [0022]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Ricks forming the light-emitting layer by premixing the two host materials of the light-emitting layer prior to vapor deposition and depositing the mixture from one and the same vapor-deposition source, based on the teaching of Ikenaga. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The premixed host materials would comprise the mixture of the current claim 1 and would be present in the vapor-deposition source, which is neither a film nor a layer.
With respect to claim 38, Ricks teaches an organic electroluminescence device and thus also teaches a method for manufacturing an organic electroluminescence device.
Additionally, as outlined above, Ricks teaches that the light-emitting layer is formed by vapor deposition where the host materials are vapor deposited from a vapor-deposition source by heating the vapor-deposition source to form the film comprising the film on a substrate.
As outlined above, the device was modified such that the light-emitting layer of the device of Ricks is formed by premixing the two host materials of the light-emitting layer prior to vapor deposition and depositing the mixture from one and the same vapor-deposition source. Thus, the resultant method of forming the organic electroluminescent device meets the limitation of preparing the mixture according to claim 1 by mixing the first compound and the second compound, introducing the mixture into one and the same vapor-deposition source, and heating the vapor-deposition source to form the mixture into a film on a substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786