DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 03/03/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 6-9, 15-18, 38, 39 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 40 and 41 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 22, 25-29, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2016, Vol. 16(3), pages 2912-2915) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is herein withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
The rejection of Claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyu et al. (CN 106565705 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 22 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyu et al. (CN 106565705 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
The rejection of Claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyu et al. (CN 106565705 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 6-9, 15-18, 22, 25, 26, 31-34, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
Claims 39 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2006/0043858 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/03/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. Claims 22, 26, 31, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyu et al. (CN 106565705 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication CN 106565705 A (herein referred to as “Lyu et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise indicated, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein correspond to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Regarding Claims 22 and 26, Lyu et al. discloses the following compound which can be used as fluorescent or phosphorescent emitter in the light-emitting layer, and/or as material comprising the electron-transporting and/or hole-transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device ([0049]):
PNG
media_image1.png
123
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 36 of Lyu et al.) such that R14 = R22 = unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (methyl), R21 = R23-24 = R11-13 = hydrogen, R111-119 = R211-219 = hydrogen of Applicant’s formulae (1) and (1-1). The organic EL device comprises a pair of electrodes, interposed therein an organic layer comprising a light-emitting layer ([0255]-[0258]). Notice that the light-emitting layer can be divided into bilayer comprising two light-emitting sublayers (first and second emitting layers).
Regarding Claims 31 and 40, Lyu et al. further discloses its inventive compounds can also be used as host (matrix) material for fluorescent or phosphorescent luminescent materials (dopants) in the light-emitting layer(s) ([0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 6-9, 15-18, 22, 25, 26, 31-34, 38, 40, and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1).
Regarding Claims 6-9, 15-18, 38, 42, and 43, Arakane et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
310
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where m = 0-2, s = 0-2, and t = 0-4, L and L’ = substituted or unsubstituted phenylene, and Ar and Ar’ = substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6-50 nuclear carbon atoms ([0097]-[0098]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image3.png
189
343
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 19). However, Arakane et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s formula (120), particularly in regards to the nature of the -L1-L2- group. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound ET6 as disclosed by Arakane et al. (above) such that R102-119 = hydrogen, L1 = Applicant’s formula (11) (with R14 = single bond to L2) and L2 = Applicant’s formula (11A) (with R13A = single bond to L1) of Applicant’s formulae (120) and (121); -L1-L2- = Applicant’s formula (13-2) (with R11-12 = R15 = hydrogen, R13 = unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl), and R11A-12A = R14A-15A = hydrogen). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the connection point of the pyrenyl group (shown in dotted box above) on the (substituted) phenylene (to an adjacent position), producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; further motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the selection of one compound from a highly finite list of possible embodiments as envisioned from the scope of Arakane et al.’s general formula (in regards to the connection point of the pyrenyl group on “(L)m”), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Arakane et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: anode, hole-injecting/transporting layer, light-emitting layer, electron-transporting layer, electron-injecting layer, and cathode (Fig. 1); the light-emitting layer comprises a host material and dopant material (such fluorescent compounds); a combination of host materials may be used ([0121], [0140]-[0141]). Dopant materials include those that emit in the blue (i.e., maximum λem = 430-480 nm) ([0151]). Arakane et al. discloses the use of pyrene and anthracene derivatives as host material, including the above compound ([0123]). Notice that the light-emitting layer can be divided into bilayer comprising two light-emitting sublayers (first and second emitting layers).
Regarding Claims 22, 25, 26, 31-34, 40, 44 and 45, the embodiment disclosed by Arakane et al. is again shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
173
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 19). However, Arakane et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on any one of Applicant’s formulae (1)-(3), particularly in regards to the nature of the -L1-L2- group. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound ET6 as disclosed by Arakane et al. (above) such that R111-119 = R211-219 = hydrogen, R33 = R54 = phenyl, and R31-32 = R34 = R41-44 = R51-53 = R61-64 = hydrogen of Applicant’s formulae (2), (3), (2-1), and (3-1). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the connection points of the two pyrenyl groups (shown in dotted boxes above) on the (substituted) phenylene, producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; further motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the selection of one compound from a highly finite list of possible embodiments as envisioned from the scope of Arakane et al.’s general formula (in regards to the connection point of the pyrenyl group and “Ar” on “(L)m”), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
17. Claims 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1) as applied above and in further view of Ikeda et al. (US 2006/0043858 A1).
Arakane et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device of Claims 38 and 40 as shown above. Arakane et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises a host material and dopant material (such fluorescent compounds); a combination of host materials may be used ([0121], [0140]-[0141]). Arakane et al. discloses the use of pyrene and anthracene derivatives as host material, including the above compound ([0123]). Notice that the light-emitting layer can be divided into bilayer comprising two light-emitting sublayers (first and second emitting layers). However, Arakane et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant’s formula (2) (second host material).
Ikeda et al. discloses the following anthracene derivative as material comprising “at least one layer in the organic thin film layer” of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with long life and great efficiency ([0005], [0007]):
PNG
media_image5.png
202
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 6) such that R201-208 = hydrogen, L201-202 = single bond, and Ar201-202 = unsubstituted aryl group having 10 or 12 ring carbon atoms (naphthyl or biphenyl) of Applicant’s formula (2). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound AN1 as disclosed by Ikeda et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Arakane et al. (as additional host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Ikeda et al., which discloses a known anthracene derivative which can be utilized in any one layer in an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with long life and great efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 27-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication CN 106565705 A (herein referred to as “Lyu et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise indicated, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein correspond to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The closest prior art is provided by Lyu et al., which discloses the following compound which can be used as fluorescent or phosphorescent emitter in the light-emitting layer, and/or as material comprising the electron-transporting and/or hole-transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device ([0049]):
PNG
media_image1.png
123
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 36 of Lyu et al.). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Lyu et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses any of the compounds as recited in Claim 27, particularly in regards to the nature of the biphenylene linking group of Applicant’s formulae (1)-(3).
Response to Arguments
19. The Applicant argues on page 44 that Lyu et al.’s cited compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 36) does not satisfy the requirement of Claim 22 that “at least one of R11 to R14 or R21 to R24 is not a hydrogen atom . . . .” Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that compound 201 as disclosed by Lyu et al. has R14 = R22 = unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (methyl) (i.e., is not a hydrogen atom).
20. The Applicant argues on pages 44-51 for unexpected results as shown in the present Specification in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Arakane et al. However, the Office finds the results unpersuasive as the data is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Notice particularly the rather broad scope of the nature of the biphenylene linkage group (connecting the two pyrenes) comprising substituents of a nearly infinite variety of chemical groups (in contrast to the tested compounds comprising biphenylene linkage groups of narrow scope). It is thus the position of the Office that the full scope of the claims recite compounds with properties (in organic electroluminescent (EL) devices) which cannot be reasonably extrapolated from the limited data set as present by the Applicant.
Conclusion
21. 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.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights