DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed 07/22/26.
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, 7, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0181561 A1) in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/23/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1-5, 8, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0181561 A1) in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/23/26 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2022/0231229 A1) in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/23/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1-5, 8, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2022/0231229 A1) in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/23/26 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0181561 A1) in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1).
Fleetham et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising a light-emitting layer comprising a first host which is “partially or fully deuterated” (Abstract; [0007]); partial deuteration includes at least one hydrogen being replaced by deuterium, ranging from “at least 5%” to “at least 90%” of the hydrogens being replaced by deuterium ([0055]). The first host is of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
364
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 14) where X1-6 = C or N ([0212]), RA’-D’ = no substitution or maximum substitutions and includes hydrogen or substituent including deuterium which can joined or fused into a ring ([0045], [0051], [0215]-[0216]). An embodiment (first host) is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
466
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 31). However, Fleetham et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1, particularly in regards to the nature of the L1-Ar1 and L2-Ar2 groups. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the above compound as disclosed by Fleetham et al. such that R1-18 = deuterium, n1 = 3, Ra = deuterium, L1-2 = single bond, and Ar1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 1, 1A, 1B, and 1C; Ra1-2 = Ra4 = deuterium of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-III; corresponds to 1-62 as recited in Claim 8. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the exchange of one group of substituents (D5-phenyls) for functional equivalents (an isotopic analogs, i.e., unsubstituted phenyls) (or merely an exchange of hydrogens for isotopic functional equivalents, i.e., deuteriums), which is easily envisioned from the disclosure of Fleetham et al. which teaches variable degrees of deuteration ranging from at least 5% to at least 90% of the first host, producing a compound that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties (as well as fully encompassed by Fleetham et al.’s general formula), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Fleetham et al. further discloses the following organic EL device for the construction of displays and the like ([0328]):
PNG
media_image3.png
808
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1) comprising substrate (110), anode (115), hole-injecting layer (120) (hole transport layer), hole-transporting layer (125) (hole transport auxiliary layer), electron-blocking layer (130), light-emitting layer (135), hole-blocking layer (140), electron-transporting layer (145), electron-injecting layer (150), protective layer (155), cathode (160), and barrier layer (170) (Fig. 1; [0333]); its inventive compounds serve as (first) host material in the light-emitting layer ([0006]). The light-emitting layer further comprises a (second) host material, which can be undeuterated ([0195]). Fleetham et al. discloses an “additional layer” (hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, or layer adjacent to the light-emitting layer) which can also comprise its inventive (partially or fully deuterated) compounds ([0090], [0183]-[0184]). However, Fleetham et al. does not explicitly disclose a second compound as recited in the claims.
Kai et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
394
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 8) (second compound) such that R27-32 = hydrogen, n15 = 1, R50 = hydrogen, L4 = L6 = L8 = single bond, and R22 = R24 = substituted C5 heterocyclic group (phenyl-substituted pyridyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-IB-2. Kai et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with high efficiency and good driving stability (Abstract; [0018]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound (33) as disclosed by Kai et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Fleetham et al. (as additional, second host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kai et al., which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with high efficiency and good driving stability.
10. Claims 1-5, 8, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2022/0231229 A1) in view of Kai et al. (US 2010/0187977 A1).
Yang et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising a plurality of host materials comprising first and second host materials, the latter of which comprises compounds such as (Abstract; [0006]):
PNG
media_image5.png
490
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 103) such that L1-2 = single bond, and Ar1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 and wherein Dn represents “preferably an integer of 8 or more”; the deuteration leads to increase bond dissociation energy, improving stability of the molecule ([0070]). Yang et al. discloses that the term “a plurality of host materials” comprises “at least two host materials,” including other conventional materials ([0037]). However, Yang et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to produce a compound that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1, with Ra = R1-18 = deuterium (to produce 1-62 as recited in Claim 8). The motivation is provided by the fact that the production merely involves the exchange of one group of atoms (hydrogens) for functional equivalents (isotopic analogs, i.e., deuteriums), which is easily envisioned from the disclosure of Yang et al. which teaches a preferred deuteration of “8 or more” in order to improve stability of the molecule. However, Yang et al. does not explicitly disclose a second compound as recited in the claims.
Kai et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
394
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 8) (second compound) such that R27-32 = hydrogen, n15 = 1, R50 = hydrogen, L4 = L6 = L8 = single bond, and R22 = R24 = substituted C5 heterocyclic group (phenyl-substituted pyridyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-IB-2. Kai et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with high efficiency and good driving stability (Abstract; [0018]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound (33) as disclosed by Kai et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Yang et al. (as additional host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kai et al., which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with high efficiency and good driving stability.
11. Claims 1-5, 8, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 2022/0181561 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0053960 A1).
Fleetham et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising a light-emitting layer comprising a first host which is “partially or fully deuterated” (Abstract; [0007]); partial deuteration includes at least one hydrogen being replaced by deuterium, ranging from “at least 5%” to “at least 90%” of the hydrogens being replaced by deuterium ([0055]). The first host is of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
364
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 14) where X1-6 = C or N ([0212]), RA’-D’ = no substitution or maximum substitutions and includes hydrogen or substituent including deuterium which can joined or fused into a ring ([0045], [0051], [0215]-[0216]). An embodiment (first host) is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
466
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 31). However, Fleetham et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1, particularly in regards to the nature of the L1-Ar1 and L2-Ar2 groups. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the above compound as disclosed by Fleetham et al. such that R1-18 = deuterium, n1 = 3, Ra = deuterium, L1-2 = single bond, and Ar1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 1, 1A, 1B, and 1C; Ra1-2 = Ra4 = deuterium of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-III; corresponds to 1-62 as recited in Claim 8. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the exchange of one group of substituents (D5-phenyls) for functional equivalents (an isotopic analogs, i.e., unsubstituted phenyls) (or merely an exchange of hydrogens for isotopic functional equivalents, i.e., deuteriums), which is easily envisioned from the disclosure of Fleetham et al. which teaches variable degrees of deuteration ranging from at least 5% to at least 90% of the first host, producing a compound that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties (as well as fully encompassed by Fleetham et al.’s general formula), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Fleetham et al. further discloses the following organic EL device for the construction of displays and the like ([0328]):
PNG
media_image3.png
808
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1) comprising substrate (110), anode (115), hole-injecting layer (120) (hole transport layer), hole-transporting layer (125) (hole transport auxiliary layer), electron-blocking layer (130), light-emitting layer (135), hole-blocking layer (140), electron-transporting layer (145), electron-injecting layer (150), protective layer (155), cathode (160), and barrier layer (170) (Fig. 1; [0333]); its inventive compounds serve as (first) host material in the light-emitting layer ([0006]). The light-emitting layer further comprises a (second) host material, which can be undeuterated ([0195]). Fleetham et al. discloses an “additional layer” (hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, or layer adjacent to the light-emitting layer) which can also comprise its inventive (partially or fully deuterated) compounds ([0090], [0183]-[0184]). However, Fleetham et al. does not explicitly disclose a second compound as recited in the claims.
Park et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
278
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 7) (second compound) such that R25 = R28-32 = hydrogen, n15 = 1, R50 = hydrogen, L6 = L8 = single bond, R22 = R24 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl), and X4 = S of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-IB-1. Park et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with improved luminous efficiency, color purity, and lifetime ([0012]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound 2-10 as disclosed by Park et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Fleetham et al. (as additional, second host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Park et al., which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved luminous efficiency, color purity, and lifetime.
12. Claims 1-5, 8, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2022/0231229 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0053960 A1).
Yang et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising a plurality of host materials comprising first and second host materials, the latter of which comprises compounds such as (Abstract; [0006]):
PNG
media_image5.png
490
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 103) such that L1-2 = single bond, and Ar1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 and wherein Dn represents “preferably an integer of 8 or more”; the deuteration leads to increase bond dissociation energy, improving stability of the molecule ([0070]). Yang et al. discloses that the term “a plurality of host materials” comprises “at least two host materials,” including other conventional materials ([0037]). However, Yang et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to produce a compound that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1, with Ra = R1-18 = deuterium (to 1-62 as recited in Claim 8). The motivation is provided by the fact that the production merely involves the exchange of one group of atoms (hydrogens) for functional equivalents (isotopic analogs, i.e., deuteriums), which is easily envisioned from the disclosure of Yang et al. which teaches a preferred deuteration of “8 or more” in order to improve stability of the molecule. However, Yang et al. does not explicitly disclose a second compound as recited in the claims.
Park et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
278
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 7) (second compound) such that R25 = R28-32 = hydrogen, n15 = 1, R50 = hydrogen, L6 = L8 = single bond, R22 = R24 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl), and X4 = S of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-IB-1. Park et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with improved luminous efficiency, color purity, and lifetime ([0012]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound 2-10 as disclosed by Park et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Yang et al. (as additional host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Park et al., which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved luminous efficiency, color purity, and lifetime.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments on pages 21-28 with respect to the deficiencies of the previous rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. 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