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, 3-8, and 14-15 are amended, claim 21 is new, and claim 19 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 1/30/2026. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 19 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 19 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 01/30/2026.
The rejection of claims 7-8 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 previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/30/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori (US 2016/0338436 A1) in view of Takeshi (English translation of JP 2008135498 A obtained from Global Dossier) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/30/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori in view of Takeshi and Nagao (English translation of WO 2014017484 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/30/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-16 of the reply dated 01/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 and 20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues light-emitting devices of the instant invention wherein a compound in which β1 and/or β2 of General Formula (G1) is a biphenyl group or a naphthyl group exhibit significantly higher reliability than devices employing a compound in which β1 and/or β2 is a phenyl group. Applicant points to Examples 1-3 for support, which compares the following devices: i) Light-emitting device 1 and Comparative light-emitting device 2; ii) Light-emitting device 3 and Comparative light-emitting device 5; and iii) Light-emitting device 6 and Comparative light-emitting device 7. The results are summarized in the table below (see instant ¶ [0235], [0263] and [0276]; Tables 2, 4, and 6):
Hosts
Luminance (cd/m2)
Current efficiency (cd/A)
Power efficiency (lm/W)
External quantum efficiency (%)
Light-emitting device 1
8BP-4mDPtPBfpm:
βNCCmBP
PNG
media_image1.png
252
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1100
84
74
22
Comparative light-emitting device 2
8BP-4mDPtPBfpm:
βNCCP
PNG
media_image2.png
117
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1300
84
73
22
Light-emitting device 3
8BP-4mDPtPBfpm:
βNCCBP
PNG
media_image3.png
279
197
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1100
77
68
21
Comparative light-emitting device 5
8BP-4mDPtPBfpm:
βNCCP
PNG
media_image2.png
117
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
840
76
66
20
Light-emitting device 6
8BP-4mDPtPBfpm:
BisβNCz
PNG
media_image4.png
148
265
media_image4.png
Greyscale
970
83
82
21
Comparative light-emitting device 7
8BP-4mDPtPBfpm:
βNCCP
PNG
media_image2.png
117
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
880
74
73
19
Examiner's response –Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Unexpected Results
Applicant argues that the inventive devices show improved device reliability (see page 14 of the remarks). It is unclear which property or properties Applicant is referring to when discussing reliability. As shown in the table above, the data of the instant specification provide results for luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and external quantum efficiency.
With respect to luminance, inventive Light-emitting device 3 shows a 30% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 5 and inventive Light-emitting device 6 shows a 10% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 7. However, Comparative light-emitting device 2 shows a 18% improvement over inventive Light-emitting device 1. Thus, the inventive devices do not consistently show improvement in luminance over comparative devices.
With respect to current efficiency, inventive Light-emitting device 3 shows a 1% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 5 and inventive Light-emitting device 6 shows a 12% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 7. However, the current efficiency of inventive Light-emitting device 1 and Comparative light-emitting device 2 are identical and thus no improvement is shown. Thus, the inventive devices do not consistently show improvement in current efficiency over comparative devices.
With respect to power efficiency, inventive Light-emitting device 1 shows a 1% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 2, inventive Light-emitting device 3 shows a 3% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 5 and inventive Light-emitting device 6 shows a 12% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 7. However, given that the hosts of βNCCmBP, βNCCP, and BisβNCz and the host of βNCCP are not identical in structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the properties between devices comprising these compounds to be identical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would expect some degree of variability between the power efficiency and thus it is not clear that the difference in power efficiency is truly unexpected. Furthermore, even if inventive Light-emitting device 6 shows unexpectedly improved power efficiency, given that inventive Light-emitting devices 1 and 3 only show a 1-3% improvement over the comparative devices, it is unclear whether the inventive devices show unexpectedly improved power efficiency across the full scope of the claims.
With respect to external quantum efficiency, inventive Light-emitting device 3 shows a 5% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 5 and inventive Light-emitting device 6 shows a 10% improvement over Comparative light-emitting device 7. However, the external quantum efficiency of inventive Light-emitting device 1 and Comparative light-emitting device 2 are identical and thus no improvement is shown. Thus, the inventive devices comprising do not consistently show improvement in external quantum efficiency over comparative devices.
Thus, it is unclear whether the degree of improvement shown by the data in the instant specification is truly unexpected.
Additionally, as discussed further in the rejection below, Takeshi teaches a light emitting element including a host material having a carbazole skeleton represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0009]-[0012]). Takeshi teaches the element may obtain high efficiency by containing a compound represented by general formula (1) wherein at least one of R15 to R24 are bonded to each other to form a ring structure (such as a naphthyl group). Accordingly, Takeshi suggests a device comprising a compound represented by General Formula (G1) wherein β1 and/or β2 are a naphthyl group leads to improved efficiency.
Thus, given the teachings of Takeshi, it is unclear whether the degree of improvement shown by the data in the instant specification is truly unexpected.
Comparison with closest prior art
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Takeshi teaches compound 8 which reads on the claimed General Formula (G1) wherein β1 and β2 are each a naphthyl group. Accordingly, as Takeshi anticipates a compound represented by General Formula (G1) wherein β1 and β2 are each a naphthyl group, evidence of unexpected results attributed to a compound represented by General Formula (G1) wherein β1 and β2 are each a naphthyl group cannot be used to overcome Takeshi. See MPEP 2131.04.
Additionally, it should be noted that Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. The device examples of the instant specification comprise different materials than the devices of Mitsumori.
Particularly, Mitsumori teaches the Light-emitting element 10 which includes host compounds of 4mDBTBPBfpm-II and PCCP (see Mitsumori, Table 5 on pg. 68 and structures on pgs. 52 and 67).
4mDBTBPBfpm-II:
PNG
media_image5.png
176
267
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PCCP:
PNG
media_image6.png
272
246
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In contrast, the inventive Light-emitting devices 1, 3, and 6 use a first host of 8BP-4mDPtPBfpm and second hosts of βNCCmBP, βNCCP, and BisβNCz, respectively.
PNG
media_image7.png
127
305
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As shown by the structures above, the inventive 8BP-4mDPtPBfpm differs from Mitsumori’s 4mDBTBPBfpm-II as 8BP-4mDPtPBfpm comprises a phenyl linking group rather than a bi-phenyl linking group between the benzofuropyrimidine and the dibenzothiophene rings, and further comprises a bi-phenyl substituent on the benzofuropyrimidine ring. Applicant has not provided an explanation regarding this difference. It is unclear if a device comprising Mitsumori’s 4mDBTBPBfpm-II that also contains a compound represented by General Formula (G1) wherein β1 and β2 are each a naphthyl or bi-phenyl group would obtain the results as discussed by Applicant.
Additionally, as a comparison is only made between hosts of βNCCmBP, βNCCP, and BisβNCz (Light-emitting devices 1, 3, and 6) and a host of βNCCP (Comparative light-emitting devices 2, 5, and 7), Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. As shown by the structures above, PCCP comprises a phenyl group in the locations corresponding to the claimed β1 and β2. This differs from the comparative compound βNCCP which comprises one phenyl and one naphthyl group in the locations corresponding to the claimed β1 and β2. While Applicant asserts that it is reasonable to expect that replacing both β1 and β2 (as in PCCP) with bi-phenyl or naphthyl groups would result in an equal or even greater improvement (see page 15 of the remarks), there is nothing in the data to suggest this would be expected. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. MPEP 2145.
As the devices of Applicant and the devices of Mitsumori comprise different structure and materials, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Applicant's argument –On page 15, Applicant argues neither Mitsumori or Takeshi recognizes or suggests that the variation of the β1 and/or β2 substituents would impact device reliability, nor do they provide any teaching or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to expect improved performance from such substitutions.
Examiner's response –As discussed above, Takeshi teaches a light emitting element including a host material having a carbazole skeleton represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0009]-[0012]). Takeshi teaches the element may obtain high efficiency by containing a compound represented by general formula (1) wherein at least one of R15 to R24 are bonded to each other to form a ring structure (such as a naphthyl group). Examples of such compounds include Takeshi’s compound 8 reproduced below (see Takeshi, pg. 6).
general formula (1):
PNG
media_image8.png
204
239
media_image8.png
Greyscale
8:
PNG
media_image9.png
192
136
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Takeshi teaches a device comprising a compound represented by General Formula (G1) wherein β1 and β2 are each a naphthyl group leads to improved efficiency. While it is unclear to which property Applicant is referring to when reciting device reliability, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect improved efficiency from a compound having the structure of General Formula (G1) wherein β1 and β2 are each a naphthyl group, based on the teachings of Takeshi.
Applicant's argument –On page 15, Applicant argues the modification of replacing the phenyl groups of Mitsumori’s PCCP with at least biphenyl or naphthyl groups relies on hindsight reconstruction.
Examiner's response –In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
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 1-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori (US 2017/0338436 A1) in view of Takeshi (English translation of JP 2008135498 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10-16, Mitsumori teaches a light-emitting element having low driving voltage and high emission efficiency, wherein the element comprises a light-emitting layer including a guest material and two host materials, wherein the host materials form an exciplex (abstract; ¶ [0204] and [0208]) (claim 11). Preferably, at least one the host materials is a compound having a hole-transport property and the other host material has a function of electron-transport property (¶ [0208]). Mitsumori teaches examples of such elements including that of Light-emitting element 10 which includes a light-emitting layer between a pair of electrodes in which the light-emitting layer includes a dopant (light-emitting substance) and host compounds of 4mDBTBPBfpm-II and PCCP provided in a weight ratio of 0.8:0.2 (claim 12) (see Table 5 on pg. 68).
4mDBTBPBfpm-II is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed General Formula (G1) (pg. 67).
4mDBTBPBfpm-II:
PNG
media_image5.png
176
267
media_image5.png
Greyscale
G1:
PNG
media_image10.png
91
156
media_image10.png
Greyscale
4mDBTBPBfpm-II reads on the claimed General Formula (G1) (claims 3-4 and 15) wherein:
A1 represents an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms; and
R20 to R24 each represent hydrogen.
Additionally, 4mDBTBPBfpm-II reads on the claimed General Formulas (G2) and (G3) wherein α represents an unsubstituted phenylene group; n is an integer of 2; and Htuni is an unsubstituted dibenzofuranyl represented by Formula (Ht-1) (claims 5-8 and 10).
PCCP (the host materials with hole-transport property) fails to read on the claimed General Formula (Q1) as the carbazole groups are substituted with phenyl rings (see structure on pg. 52). However, Mitsumori does teach examples of the host material having a high hole-transport property include structures with carbazole skeletons and aromatic amine compounds (¶ [0244] and [0261]).
PCCP:
PNG
media_image11.png
272
246
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Takeshi teaches a light emitting element having high luminous efficiency that can be driving at a low driving voltage by comprising a light-emitting layer including a host material having a carbazole skeleton represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0009]-[0012]). Since at least one of R15 to R24 is substituted with an amino group or are bonded to each other to form a ring structure, the element may obtain both high efficiency and low driving voltage (¶ [0032]-[0033]). Examples thereof include compound 8 (pg. 6).
general formula (1):
PNG
media_image8.png
204
239
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 substitute PCCP with a compound of Takeshi’s general formula (1), based on the teaching of Takeshi. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a light emitting element having high luminous efficiency and low driving voltage, as taught by Takeshi.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 8, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds taught by Takeshi, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host material having a high hole-transport property in the device of Mitsumori and possessing the benefits taught by Takeshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Takeshi’s general formula (1) having the benefits taught by Takeshi in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Takeshi’s compound 8 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed General Formula (Q1).
8:
PNG
media_image9.png
192
136
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Q1:
PNG
media_image12.png
168
258
media_image12.png
Greyscale
4mDBTBPBfpm-II reads on the claimed General Formulas (Q1) and (Q2) (claims 1-8) wherein:
R1 to R14 each represents a hydrogen; and
β1 and β2 each represent an unsubstituted β-naphthyl group.
Per claim 13, 4mDBTBPBfpm-II (first organic compound) has a molecular weight of 504.60 g/mol and Takeshi’s compound 8 (second organic compound) has a molecular weight of 584.71 g/mol.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Mitsumori in view of Takeshi teach the modified light-emitting element 10 as described above with respect to claim 14.
The modified light-emitting element 10 of Mitsumori in view of Takeshi fails to include a substrate. However, Mitsumori does teach a light-emitting element may be formed over a substrate of glass, plastic, or the like, and then may be transferred to another substrate such as a stone substrate, a wood substrate, etc. (¶ [0351] and [0355]). By using such a substrate, the light-emitting element may obtain high durability and high heat resistance (¶ [0355]).
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 form the modified light-emitting element 10 over a substrate, and then transfer the light-emitting element to another substrate, based on the teaching of Mitsumori. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a light-emitting element with high durability and high heat resistance, as taught by Mitsumori.
The two substrates read on the limitation of a support base in claim 20.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori (US 2017/0338436 A1) in view of Takeshi (English translation of JP 2008135498 A obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Nagao (English translation of WO 2014017484 A1 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Mitsumori in view of Takeshi teach the light-emitting element including a light-emitting layer comprising hosts of 4mDBTBPBfpm-II and Takeshi’s compound 8, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 14.
Takeshi’s compound 8 fails to include only one unsubstituted β-naphthyl group. However, as discussed above, Mitsumori teaches examples of the host material having a high hole-transport property include structures with carbazole skeletons and aromatic amine compounds (¶ [0244] and [0261]). Additionally, in Takeshi’s general formula (1), at least one of R15 to R24 is substituted with an amino group or are bonded to each other to form a ring structure (¶ [0032]-[0033]).
Nagao teaches a light-emitting element having improved luminous efficiency and durability by containing a carbazole skeleton represented by general formula (1); wherein R3 is a group represented by general formula (3); A is a terphenyl group or a phenyl-substituted terphenyl group represented by general formulas (11) to (16); and A and R21 are represented by different groups (¶ [0007]-[0013]). The compounds represented by general formula (1) can be used as hole-transporting host materials (¶ [0100]). Nagao teaches examples of light-emitting elements comprising compounds represented by general formula (1) including Example 21 which includes compound 18 as the host material (¶ [0170]; structure on pg. 9).
(1):
PNG
media_image13.png
101
128
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(3):
PNG
media_image14.png
106
138
media_image14.png
Greyscale
18:
PNG
media_image15.png
314
219
media_image15.png
Greyscale
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 substitute a naphthyl group with a terphenyl group, as shown in Nagao’s compound 18 of Example 21, to arrive at a compound represented by Nagao’s general formula (1), based on the teaching of Nagao. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a light-emitting element with improved luminous efficiency and durability, as taught by Nagao.
The modified compound 8 of Takeshi in view of Nagao reads on Takeshi’s general formula (1) wherein R1 to R14, R17 to R21, and R24 are each hydrogen, R16 is an aryl group, and R22 and R23 combine to form a ring structure (see Takeshi, ¶ [0010]-[0011]). Additionally, the modified compound 8 of Takeshi in view of Nagao reads on Nagao’s formula (1) wherein R3 is represented by general formula (3), R1 to R8 and R13 to R20 are each hydrogen, A is represented by general formula (11), and R21 is an aryl group (see Nagao, ¶ [0008]-[0014]). Accordingly, the modified compound 8 of Takeshi in view of Nagao are expected to obtain the benefits of Takeshi and Nagao.
The resulting compound reads on the claimed General formula (Q1) wherein β1 is an unsubstituted β-naphthyl group and β2 is an unsubstituted terphenyl group.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori (US 2017/0338436 A1) in view of Takeshi (English translation of JP 2008135498 A obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adamovich (US 2013/0112952 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Mitsumori in view of Takeshi teach the light-emitting element including a light-emitting layer comprising hosts of 4mDBTBPBfpm-II and Takeshi’s compound 8, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Mitsumori fails to teach the hosts of 4mDBTBPBfpm-II and Takeshi’s compound 8 are premixed before forming the light-emitting layer. However, Mitsumori does teach the light-emitting layer may be formed by an evaporation method (¶ [0347] and [0429]).
In the art of organic light emitting devices, Adamovich teaches it is desirable to evaporate a mixture of materials from a single source by a method known as premix-evaporation rather than simultaneous evaporation of the individual materials from their own sources, as simultaneous evaporation can be difficult (¶ [0001] and [0032]). Adamovich teaches premixing two or more host materials in one evaporation source can provide uniform and consistent evaporation of the two or more materials to form a deposited layer (¶ [0034]).
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 premix the hosts of 4mDBTBPBfpm-II and Takeshi’s compound 8 in one evaporation source before forming the light-emitting layer, based on the teaching of Adamovich. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a less difficult method of deposition and to provide uniform and consistent evaporation of the two host materials, as taught by Adamovich.
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