DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 10/10/25.
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 objection to the Abstract as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/11/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/11/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection of Claim 20 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/11/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The objection of Claims 21-26 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/11/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 17 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 07/11/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 13, 20, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (US 2016/0190477 A1) in view of Mizutani et al. (US 2014/0073784 A1) and LeCloux et al. (US 2011/0037057 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/11/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1-12, 14-19, 21-26, and 29-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (US 2016/0190477 A1) in view of Mizutani et al. (US 2014/0073784 A1) and LeCloux et al. (US 2011/0037057 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/11/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The amended portion of the Specification filed 10/10/25 recites the structures of formulae (61) to (63) (to replace original paragraph [0138] in the Specification filed 09/22/22) that are still unclear due to its low resolution, particularly in regards to the depiction of X21-28 and Y21-28. The structures need to be replaced by graphics that are legible, with clearly drawn bonds, atoms, and variable groups in each of the formulae.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-12, 14-19, 21-26, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (US 2016/0190477 A1) in view of Mizutani et al. (US 2014/0073784 A1) and LeCloux et al. (US 2011/0037057 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19, 21, 23-26, and 29-33, Kawakami et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: anode, hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, electron-transporting layer (first layer), electron-injecting layer (second layer), and cathode (i.e., there exists separate and sequential electron-transporting and electron-injecting layers directly between the light-emitting layer and the cathode) ([0323]-[0324], [0358]); the layers are formed via methods such as spin coating and the like ([0010]). Kawakami et al. disclose a composition comprising a compound of formula (1) (first compound) and a compound of formula (3) (second compound) as shown below ([0017]):
PNG
media_image1.png
26
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
110
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0018], [0029]) where m >= 2, A = substituted or unsubstituted aromatic heterocyclic group, L1 = single bond or substituted or unsubstituted aromatic or heterocyclic group, and B corresponds to formula (2) ([0019]-[0023]):
PNG
media_image3.png
108
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0023]) where L2 = linking group including aromatic group ([0058]), Z1-2 = ring group ([0027]), and one of X1 and Y1 = single bond (among others), and the other represents O and S (among others) ([0024]). Kawakami et al. discloses the composition can comprise the electron-transporting layer ([0321]). Embodiments are disclosed for the compounds of formulae (1) and (3), respectively:
PNG
media_image4.png
458
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 51) and
PNG
media_image5.png
256
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 62) (second compound) such that m = 0, X21-28 (not bonded with (A5)m) = CRa (with Ra = hydrogen), A3 = unsubstituted aryl group including 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl), and A4 = substituted aryl group including 12 ring carbon atoms (cyano-substituted biphenyl) of Applicant’s formula (51); A4 = Applicant’s formula (2-2). Kawakami et al. discloses that the ratio of the compound of formula (1) to compound of formula (3) is between 99:1 to 1:99 (preferably 95:5 to 5:95) (and thus can exist in equal amounts) ([0311]); furthermore, the light-emitting layer comprises fluorescent (or phosphorescent) dopant (i.e., light-emitting) material (which is embedded in host) ([0317]). However, Kawakami et al. does not explicitly disclose the three compounds satisfying the energy conditions as recited in the claims.
Mizutani et al. discloses the following compound for use as material comprising the electron-transporting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with high efficiency and lower driving voltage (Abstract; [0008], [0144]):
PNG
media_image6.png
260
566
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 13) (first compound) such that X2-3 = N, X1 = CR4 (with R4 = hydrogen), R2 = R = unsubstituted aryl group including 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl), R1 = R = substituted aryl group including 6 ring carbon atoms (dibenzofuranyl-substituted phenyl), L1 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group including 6 ring carbon atoms (phenylene), n1 = 1, and Ar1 = unsubstituted monovalent heterocyclic group including 13 ring atoms (dibenzofuranyl) of Applicant’s formula (11); Ar1 = Applicant’s formula (12) (with R16 = bonds with L1, X11 = O, and R11-15 = R17-18 = hydrogen); X12 = O of Applicant’s formula (21). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Mizutani et al. (above) into the electron-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kawakami et al. (corresponding to the compound of formula (1)). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Mizutani et al. which discloses that the use of its electron-transporting compounds results in an organic EL device with high efficiency and lower driving voltage. However, Kawakami et al. in view of Mizutani et al. does not explicitly disclose the three compounds satisfying the energy conditions as recited in the claims.
LeCloux et al. discloses deuterated anthracene compounds such as the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
264
428
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 4) such that n = 1 and x = y = z = 0 (as an obvious embodiment if singly deuterated; i.e., x + y + z + n = 1), R101-108 = hydrogen, Ar102 = substituted aryl group including 6 ring carbon atoms (naphthyl-substituted phenyl), L101 = single bond, and Ar101 = substituted aryl group including 10 ring carbon atoms (deuterium-substituted naphthyl) of Applicant’s formulae (102) and (103). LeCloux et al. discloses its inventive compounds are used as host materials in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with “greatly improved lifetimes” ([0057], [0065], [0069]). It would have been obvious to incorporate any of the inventive compound as disclosed by LeCloux et al. (above) as host material into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kawakami et al. in view of Mizutani et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of LeCloux et al., which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in an organic EL device with improved lifetimes.
It is also the position of the Office that the organic EL device as disclosed by Kawakami et al. in view of Mizutani et al. and LeCloux et al. would satisfy the energy conditions as recited in the claims. Evidence is provided by the fact that the compound as disclosed by Mizutani et al. (above) and B-17 as disclosed by Kawakami et al. are exactly identical to the Applicant’s preferred first and second compounds (see pages 23 and 29, respectively of the present national phase publication); furthermore, the deuterated host compound H1 as disclosed by LeCloux et al. (above) is fully encompassed by the Applicant’s preferred formula (103) for the host compound, being nearly identical to the Applicant’s preferred host compound embodiment (see page 43 of the present national phase publication), differing only in the presence of a single deuterium atom and thus can be expected to have highly similar electronic properties.
Regarding Claim 18, Mizutani et al. discloses another embodiment which can be alternatively used:
PNG
media_image8.png
400
386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 10) such that X2-3 = N, X1 = CR4 (with R4 = hydrogen), R1-2 = R = unsubstituted aryl group including 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl), L1 = unsubstituted arylene group including 6 ring carbon atoms (phenylene), n1 = 2, and Ar1 = unsubstituted monovalent heterocyclic group including 13 ring atoms (dibenzofuranyl) of Applicant’s formula (11). Notice that the compound is identical to the Applicant’s preferred first compound as shown on page 24 of the present national phase publication.
Regarding Claim 22, Kawakami et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant’s formula (72). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify B-17 as disclosed by Kawakami et al. (above) such that the resulting compound fully conforms to the formula. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the connection point of one of the two carbazole groups (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 production merely involves selection of one possible embodiment from a highly finite list as envisioned from the scope of Kawakami et al.’s general formula (3) (i.e., in regards to the manner of connection between the two carbazole groups), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Notice that the resulting compound is identical to the Applicant’s preferred second compound as shown on page 27 of the present national phase publication.
Response to Arguments
14. The Applicant argues on page 24 that the composition as disclosed by Kawakami et al. is “usually used in an emitting layer of an organic light emitting device”; the Applicant argues that as Kawakami et al.’ “does not explicitly teach the use” of the composition in an electron-transporting layer, there is not motivation to produce the Applicant’s claimed invention. Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that Kawakami et al. discloses that any of the organic thin film layers that are interposed between the electrodes in the organic EL device “comprises the organic electroluminescence composition” (number 7, [0037]); in fact, Kawakami et al. discloses that such organic thin film “may include . . . an electron transporting layer” ([0321]). Hence, it is the position of the Office that the full scope of the invention of Kawakami et al. is not merely limited to its explicitly disclosed embodiments, but rather can be easily extended to embodiments wherein its inventive composition comprises the electron-transporting layer of an organic EL device.
Conclusion
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
16. 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