DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 02/26/26 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 02/26/26 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of
foreign document publication JP 2014-096572 A (herein referred to as “Ebisawa et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ebisawa et al. discloses the following compound for use as light-emitting dopant (in the light-emitting layer) of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (Abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
254
166
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 21 of Ebisawa et al.) such that n = 0, R3-4 = unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl), R5-10 = hydrogen, R1 = hydrogen, and R2 = Applicant’s Chemical Formula A (with l1 = 1, L1 = unsubstituted heteroarylene group (pyridinylene), and m = 1) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 1 and 1-1; x = 0 of Applicant’s Chemical Formula A-3. Ebisawa et al. disclose an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: substrate (2), anode (3), hole-injecting layer (4), hole-transporting layer (5), light-emitting layer (6), electron-transporting layer (7), electron-injecting layer (8), and cathode (9) (Fig. 1). The light-emitting layer comprises a host and dopant materials ([0007]). Ebisawa et al. discloses that the electron-transporting layer (7) and the electron-injecting layer (8) can be collapsed into a single layer (i.e., an electron-injecting/transporting layer) which can “fulfill the function of both layers” ([0075]). Ebisawa et al. discloses that its inventive compounds comprise the light-emitting layer (Abstract; [0066]).
Notice that the upper portion of the light-emitting layer closer to the cathode is inherently electron-injecting/transporting to the portion of the light-emitting layer beneath it (as light is emitted via electron-hole recombination throughout the light-emitting layer (6)), and hence that upper portion can be defined as an “electron injection and transfer layer”); the cathode (“second electrode”) can be defined as a bilayer comprising the collapsed electron-injecting/transporting layer and layer 9 (as a cathode can be broadly defined as a “layer” that is merely a source of electrons). This interpretation would read on the construction as recited in Claim 1.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of
foreign document publication JP 2014-096572 A (herein referred to as “Ebisawa et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ebisawa et al. discloses the compound of Claim 1 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. Ebisawa et al. discloses that its inventive compounds are encompassed by the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
48
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 12) where A = any one of the following (among others) ([0012]):
PNG
media_image3.png
306
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 13) and Xn = any one of X1-18 which is linked to L. Other embodiments are disclosed, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
230
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 21). However, Ebisawa et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the compounds as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound A-11-1 as disclosed by Ebisawa et al. (above) to produce the following compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
166
136
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the bonding position of the CN-substituted phenylene on the core condensed polycyclic group, producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; further motivation exists, including the fact that the production merely involves selection from a highly finite list of possibilities (in regards to the bonding position of the CN-substituted phenylene) as envisioned from the scope of Ebisawa et al.’s general formula, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ebisawa et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: substrate (2), anode (3), hole-injecting layer (4), hole-transporting layer (5), light-emitting layer (6), electron-transporting layer (7), electron-injecting layer (8), and cathode (9) (Fig. 1); its inventive compounds comprise the light-emitting layer (Abstract; [0066]).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments on pages 19-23 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the amended rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
12. 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