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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 5-10, and 12-21 are amended, claims 22-25 are new, and claims 2-4 and 11 are cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 10/10/2025. Claims 1, 5-10, and 12-25 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 2-4 and 11 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claims 2-4 and 11 are cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 10/10/2025.
The rejection of claims 1, 7, 9-10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2022/0384744 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/10/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/10/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Park (English translation of WO 2017099430 A obtained from Global Dossier) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/10/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of 7-8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lee ‘633 (English translation of KR 20130010633 A obtained from Espacenet) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/10/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Babudri (Babudri, Francesco, et al. “Fluorinated organic materials for electronic and optoelectronic applications: the role of the fluorine atom. Chemical Communications 10 (2007): 1003-1022.) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/10/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 13 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fennimore (US 2017/0200893 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/10/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Forrest (US 2006/0273714 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/10/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 of the reply dated 10/10/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 7-10, and 12-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the claims as amended.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, the newly cited reference Wang (English translation of CN 110950852 A obtained from Global Dossier) teaches the compound T066, which reads on the claimed formula (3). Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6, 8, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For ease of reading, it is recommended in claim 5 to replace “the diphenyltriazinyl structure in formula (3) has formula (4)” with “the diphenyltriazinyl structure in formula (3) has a structure of formula (4)” or “the diphenyltriazinyl structure in formula (3) is represented by formula (4)”.
For ease of reading, it is recommended in claim 6 to replace “the diphenyltriazinyl structure in formula (3) has formula (5)” with “the diphenyltriazinyl structure in formula (3) has a structure of formula (5)” or “the diphenyltriazinyl structure in formula (3) is represented by formula (5)”.
For consistency with the amended claim 1, it is recommended in claim 8 to remove the extraneous space in “9,9-diphenyl fluorenyl” such that it recites “9,9-diphenylfluorenyl”.
As claim 1 recites R40 is a single bond bonded to *c and R35 is a single bond bonded to *d, it is recommended in claim 12 to replace “R31 to R40 each being neither the bond bonded to *c nor the bond bonded to *d” with “ R31 to R34 and R36 to R39” for ease of reading.
For ease of reading, it is recommended to amend claim 13 such that it recites “further comprising a heavy hydrogen atom”.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, and 12-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites R1 to R10 are each a hydrogen atom, a fluorine atom, a cyano group, unsubstituted aryl groups (phenyl, naphthyl, etc.), unsubstituted alkyl groups (methyl, ethyl, etc.), and unsubstituted heteroaryl groups (dibenzofuranyl and dibenzothiophenyl). Claim 5 similarly recites at least one selected from R2 to R4 and R7 to R9 is a fluorine atom, a cyano group, unsubstituted aryl groups (phenyl, naphthyl, etc.), unsubstituted alkyl groups (methyl, ethyl, etc.), and unsubstituted heteroaryl groups (dibenzofuranyl and dibenzothiophenyl). Claims 1 and 5 further recite adjacent two selected from R1 to R10 (or adjacent R2 to R4 and R7 to R9) may be bonded to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring structure or may not be bonded to each other. It is unclear how adjacent groups of unsubstituted aryl, unsubstituted alkyl, and unsubstituted heteroaryl may be bonded to each other to form a ring structure as this would require the unsubstituted groups to be substituted. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as R1 to R10 (or adjacent R2 to R4 and R7 to R9) may not be bonded to each other.
Claim 1 recites R11 to R14 are each independently a hydrogen atom wherein one set of adjacent two selected from R11 to R14 may be bonded to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring structure or may be not bonded to each other. Similarly, claim 1 recites R31 to R34 and R36 to R39 are each independently a hydrogen atom wherein one set of adjacent two selected from R31 to R34 and R36 to R39 may be bonded to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring structure or may be not bonded to each. However, it is unclear how two adjacent hydrogen atoms may be bonded to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring structure, and thus it is unclear how a set of adjacent two selected from R11 to R14 or a set of adjacent two selected from R31 to R34 and R36 to R39 may be bonded to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring structure. For purposes of examination, R11 to R14 and R31 to R34 and R36 to R39 will be interpreted as not bonded to each other.
Claim 1 recites a definition for “an optional substituent”. As “an optional substituent” is not previously recited in the claim and the phrase “for R1 to R14, Ar, or L” is deleted, it is unclear whether any of R1 to R14, Ar, R31 to R34, and R36 to R39 may have an optional substituent or if the optional substituent only refers to a substituent of “a substituted or unsubstituted ring structure”. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “an optional substituent” will be interpreted as referring to a substituent of the “substituted or unsubstituted ring structure”.
Claim 8 recites Ar may be an unsubstituted anthryl group or an unsubstituted 9,9’-spirobifluorenyl group. However, claim 1 (of which claim 8 is dependent upon) recites the newly added amendment that requires Ar to be selected from groups that do not include an unsubstituted anthryl group or an unsubstituted 9,9’-spirobifluorenyl group. Since Ar being selected as an unsubstituted anthryl group or an unsubstituted 9,9’-spirobifluorenyl group does not satisfy the amendment, it is unclear how Ar being an unsubstituted anthryl group or an unsubstituted 9,9’-spirobifluorenyl group reads on the amended claim. For purposes of examination, Ar will be interpreted as being selected from the groups that do not include unsubstituted anthryl or unsubstituted 9,9’-spirobifluorenyl.
Claim 12 is dependent upon cancelled claim 4. Thus, it is unclear which claim(s) claim 12 is dependent upon. For purposes of examination, claim 12 will be interpreted as being dependent upon claim 1, as the amended claim 1 incorporates the limitations of cancelled claim 4.
Claim 16 recites “the organic electroluminescent device of claim 15, comprising a heavy hydrogen atom”. It is unclear if this limitation is requiring a heavy hydrogen atom to be present somewhere in the organic electroluminescent device, if the heavy hydrogen atom is required to be in a specific layer of the organic electroluminescent device, or if a compound within the device is required to comprise a heavy hydrogen atom. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a heavy hydrogen atom is present somewhere in the organic electroluminescent device.
Claims 5-10 and 12-25 are further rejected for their dependency upon indefinite claim 1.
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.
Claims 8, 10, and 12 are 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.
As discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 8, Ar being selected as unsubstituted anthryl or unsubstituted 9,9’-spirobifluorenyl does not properly depend from the formula recited in claim 1. Thus claim 8 does not properly depend from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites R11 to R14 are all hydrogen atoms. However, claim 1 (of which claim 10 is dependent upon) already recites R11 to R14 are each a hydrogen atom. Accordingly, claim 10 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites wherein R31 to R40 each being neither the bond bonded to *c nor the bond bonded to *d are all hydrogen atoms. However, claim 1 (of which claim 12 is dependent upon) recites R31 to R34 and R36 to R39 are each independently a hydrogen atom, R40 is a single bond bonded to *c, and R35 is a single bond bonded to *d. That is, claim 1 already requires the limitation of claim 12 wherein R31 to R40 each being neither the bond bonded to *c nor the bond bonded to *d are all hydrogen atoms. Accordingly, claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (English translation of CN 110950852 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, and 25, Wang teaches an electroluminescent device having high electron transport rate, good electron transport performance, and high luminous efficiency by comprising an organic electron transport material having the structure of the general formula on page 2 (bottom of page 1). Examples of the organic electron transport material include compound T066 (page 8).
T066 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed formula (3).
T066:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(3):
PNG
media_image2.png
196
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound T066 reads on the claimed formula (3) wherein:
R1 to R6 and R10 are each hydrogen and R7 to R9 are each an unsubstituted methyl;
R11 to R14 are each hydrogen (claim 10);
Ar is an unsubstituted naphthyl (claims 8 and 25); and
R31 to R34 and R36 to R39 are each hydrogen, R40 is a single bond bonded to *c and R35 is a single bond bonded to *d (claim 12).
Additionally, given that R7 to R9 are each an unsubstituted methyl, compound T066 reads on the limitations of formula (4) and claim 5.
Wang teaches alternative organic electron transport materials including compound T070 (page 9), which reads on the claimed formula (3) in the same way as described with T066 above except wherein R1 to R10 are each hydrogen and Ar is an unsubstituted 9,9-dimethylfluorenyl group (claim 9).
T070:
PNG
media_image3.png
344
192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 6-7, 13, 15-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (English translation of CN 110950852 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the organic electron transport material T066 for use in an electroluminescent device, as described above with respect to claim 1.
T066 fails to include substituents only in the locations of the claimed R3 and R8. However, T066 is an organic electron transport material represented by the structure on page 2, wherein Ar1 and Ar2 may be substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups and wherein the substituents are not limited by specific positions (page 2). Additionally, Wang teaches alternative examples of the substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups for Ar1 and Ar2, as shown in compound T013 (page 13), wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl and Ar2 is an unsubstituted biphenyl.
structure on page 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
296
173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
T013:
PNG
media_image5.png
116
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the group
PNG
media_image1.png
60
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in compound T066 with the group
PNG
media_image5.png
116
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, as shown in compound T013, because Wang teaches Ar1 and Ar2 may each suitably be selected as substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups including unsubstituted phenyl and unsubstituted biphenyl. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the organic electron transport material in the device of Wang and possess the benefits taught by Wang. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified T066 reads on the claimed formula (5) wherein R3 is hydrogen and R8 is an unsubstituted phenyl.
Regarding claims 7 and 22-24, Wang teaches the organic electron transport material T066 for use in an electroluminescent device, as described above with respect to claim 1.
T066 fails to include an unsubstituted phenyl, an unsubstituted biphenyl, or an unsubstituted terphenyl in the location of the claimed Ar. However, T066 is an organic electron transport material represented by the structure on page 2, wherein Ar3 may be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group (page 2). Additionally, Wang teaches alternative examples of the substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups for Ar3, wherein Ar3 is an unsubstituted phenyl (as shown in compound T060), an unsubstituted biphenyl (as shown in compound T005), or an unsubstituted terphenyl (as shown in compound T049) (pages 5 and 7).
structure on page 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
296
173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
T060:
PNG
media_image6.png
360
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
T005:
PNG
media_image7.png
373
228
media_image7.png
Greyscale
T049:
PNG
media_image8.png
417
275
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the naphthyl group in the location of Ar3 in compound T066 with an unsubstituted phenyl group, an unsubstituted biphenyl group, or an unsubstituted terphenyl (as shown in compounds T060, T005, and T049), because Wang teaches Ar3 may suitably be selected as substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups including unsubstituted phenyl, unsubstituted biphenyl, and unsubstituted terphenyl. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the organic electron transport material in the device of Wang and possess the benefits taught by Wang. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified T066 reads on the claimed formula (3) wherein Ar is an unsubstituted phenyl, or alternatively an unsubstituted biphenyl or unsubstituted terphenyl (claims 7 and 22-24).
Regarding claims 15, 19, and 21, Wang teaches the organic electron transport material T066 for use in an electroluminescent device, as described above with respect to claim 1.
While Wang fails to teach a device specifically including compound T066, Wang does teach examples of the electroluminescent device include an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an organic light-emitting layer including the phosphorescent compound Ir(ppy)2(acac), an electron transport layer comprising the organic electron transport material, and a cathode (bottom of page 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound T066 in an organic electroluminescent device having the structure taught by Wang above, wherein the compound T066 is used as the organic electron transport material in the electron transport layer, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Wang according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic electroluminescent device with high electron transport rate, good electron transport performance, and high luminous efficiency, as taught by Wang. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claim 21, although the instant claim is drawn to an electronic device, the only positive limitation of the claimed electronic device is the organic electroluminescence device of claim 15. Claim 21 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or compound. Wang teaches the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 15, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an electronic device. Therefore, the OLED of Wang according to claim 15 may be considered an electronic device.
Regarding claims 13 and 16-18, Wang teaches the organic electroluminescence device comprising the organic electron transport material T066, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 15.
T066 fails to include a deuterium atom (heavy hydrogen). However, T066 is an organic electron transport material represented by the structure on page 2, wherein Ar1 and Ar2 may be substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups and wherein the substituents include deuterium (page 2). Additionally, Wang teaches alternative examples of the substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups for Ar1 and Ar2, as shown in compound T032 (page 5), wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are each a phenyl group substituted with deuterium.
structure on page 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
296
173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
T032:
PNG
media_image9.png
186
322
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the group
PNG
media_image1.png
60
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in compound T066 with the group
PNG
media_image9.png
186
322
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, as shown in compound T032, because Wang teaches Ar1 and Ar2 may each suitably be selected as substituted or unsubstituted aryl groups including phenyl substituted with deuterium. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the organic electron transport material in the device of Wang and possess the benefits taught by Wang. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified T066 reads on the claimed formula (3) and comprises a heavy hydrogen atom (deuterium) (claim 13 and 16).
Per claims 17-18, as described above with respect to claim 15, the electron transport layer comprises the modified compound T066.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (English translation of CN 110950852 A obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Forrest (US 2006/0273714 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches the organic electroluminescence device comprising the organic electron transport material T066, as described above with respect to claim 15.
As discussed above, the light-emitting layer includes the phosphorescent compound Ir(ppy)2(acac). However, Wang fails to teach the light-emitting layer includes a fluorescent material.
Forrest teaches organic light emitting devices that emit light using a combination of fluorescent emitter(s) and phosphorescent emitter(s) for the efficient utilization of all of the electrically generated excitons (abstract). Such a device achieves improved balance of efficiency and lifetime, and potentially achieves 100% internal efficiency (¶ [0012]-[0013]). Forrest teaches a specific embodiment in which the fluorescent emitting material(s) and phosphorescent emitting material(s) are mixed into the same emissive layer (¶ [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a fluorescent emitting material in the light-emitting layer, based on the teaching of Forrest. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with efficient utilization of all of the electrically generated excitons, improved balance of efficiency and lifetime, and potentially achieve 100% internal efficiency, as taught by Forrest.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786