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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on February 24, 2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 11 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 30 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed February 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 11, 14 – 16, and 18 – 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita as set forth in the office action filed November 25, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Linge as set forth in the office action filed November 25, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Han as set forth in the office action filed November 25, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Kim as set forth in the office action filed November 25, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fujita does not teach or suggest “a compound having a fused ring that includes four or more rings comprising at least one skeleton selected from the group of a benzanthracene skeleton….” as required by amended claim 1. Applicant notes that while Fujita teaches that Ar4 in the anthracene skeleton of formula (1) may be an aryl group, Fujita does not teach or suggest that adjacent Ar4 groups are bonded to form a ring and that even if a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date joined two Ar4 groups to form a ring, the resulting compound would not be a benzanthracene skeleton as currently claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The benzanthracene-containing compound of Linge contains an anthracene core and falls within the scope of compounds of formula (1) of Fujita wherein X is an aryl group (as part of the definitions in the compound) and the aryl group is a benzanthracene group. Therefore, the use of the compound of Linge within the device of Fujita does not render Fujita’s invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, because the compound of Linge still contains the anthracene compound required by Fujita.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed February 13, 2026 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 9, 12, 14 – 16 and 18 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US20190280209A1) in view of Linge (US20230225195A1).
As per claims 1 – 9, 12, 18 – 27, Fujita teaches:
An organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, a first emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode and a second emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode, wherein the first emitting layer and second emitting layer are in direct contact with each other ([0003]: “An organic EL element has a structure having a pair of electrodes composed of a positive electrode and a negative electrode, and a single layer or a plurality of layers which are disposed between the pair of electrodes and contain an organic compound.” & [0064]: “The organic electroluminescent element… in which the light emitting layer is formed by laminating at least a first light emitting layer and a second light emitting layer.” As the first and second light emitting layers are laminated, they are interpreted as being in direct contact with each other as required by claim 26.)
Wherein the first emitting layer further comprises a third compound emitting light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480 nm and the second emitting layer further comprises a fourth compound and the fourth compound is a compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480 nm (The device of Example 1 emits light at 464 nm and contains 3-139
PNG
media_image1.png
224
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0505 – 0506]) as the dopant in each layer. As compounds 3 and 4 are not required to be different, compound 3-139 is interpreted as both compounds. Since compound 3-139 is the only dopant and the device emits light at 464 nm, each of the compounds would reasonably emit at 464 nm as required by claim 19 and 21. Compound 3-139 is not a metal complex as required by claims 20 and 22.)
Wherein the first emitting layer comprises a first compound and the second emitting layer comprises a second compound, wherein at least one of the first emitting layer or the second emitting layer comprises a compound having at least one deuterium atom, and at least one of the first emitting layer or the second emitting layer comprises a compound having a fused ring that includes four or more rings, wherein the compound having a fused ring that includes four or more rings comprises at least one skeleton selected from the group consisting of a benzanthracene skeleton, a chrysene skeleton, a fluoranthene skeleton… (In [0064], Fujita teaches that the first light emitting layer contains an anthracene-based compound and the second light emitting layer contains a pyrene-based compound. A particular example of the pyrene host is compound 2-1001
PNG
media_image2.png
152
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. While this compound does not explicitly contain a deuterium atom, in [0176 – 0177], Fujita teaches examples of pyrene-based compounds and teaches that any or all of the hydrogen atoms in the compounds may be substituted by deuterium atoms. Fujita also teaches specific deuterated pyrene compounds such as compound 2-625
PNG
media_image3.png
178
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on page 70. This deuterated pyrene compound can be interpreted as the first compound in claims 3 (which requires a deuterium atom) and 8 (which requires a compound with a pyrene skeleton), or the second compound in claims 5 (which requires a deuterium atom) and 9 (which requires a compound with a pyrene skeleton) and the undeuterated pyrene compound can be interpreted as the claimed first compound in claim 7 (which requires an undeuterated compound). Fujita teaches that the anthracene-based compound is represented by formula (1)
PNG
media_image4.png
186
320
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein X is selected from among aryl groups ([0011 – 0014]). Fujita does not specifically teach a compound with four or more rings wherein the group is selected from a benzanthracene skeleton as currently claimed. Linge teaches host materials of formula H2
PNG
media_image5.png
150
340
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0017]). Linge teaches compounds of these formula are suitable for use in blue emission layers ([0221]). The use of these compounds improves efficiency and lifetime in OLEDs ([0223]) A particular compound Linge teaches is D1
PNG
media_image6.png
220
318
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0196]), which contains the benzanthracene skeleton as required by claim 1. This compound contains deuterium as required by claim 2 (wherein the compound with four fused rings is deuterated) and can be interpreted as the first compound in claim 4 (wherein the compound contains the four fused rings) or the second compound in claim 6 (wherein the compound contains the four fused rings). The compound reads on Formula (1X) of claim 12 wherein R1104 is a group represented by 11X, wherein L1101 is a substituted arylene group having 14 carbon atoms, Ar1101 is a substituted arylene group having 6 carbon atoms, R1111 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 2 carbon atoms and the remaining R groups are deuterium.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the anthracene-based compound of Linge as the anthracene host of Fujita because the compound falls within the formula for host of Fujita and Linge teaches that compounds such as compound D1 above provide improve efficiency and lifetime when used as hosts in blue emission layers ([0223]). As the anthracene host and the pyrene host materials are structurally different, it is reasonable to assume that they have at least slightly different triplet energy levels as required by claim 25.
As per claims 14 – 16, another compound taught by Linge is compound 47
PNG
media_image7.png
140
256
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on formula (2) wherein R201 to R208 are hydrogen; L201 and L202 are each a single bond; Ar201 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 18 carbon atoms; Ar202 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 16 carbon atoms, namely a compound represented by Formula (23) in claim 16 wherein X2 is an oxygen atoms, and R217 and R218 are bonded to form an unsubstituted monocyclic ring and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. While the compound does not contain deuterium as required by claim 15, Linge teaches several deuterated compounds, such as compound 72
PNG
media_image8.png
158
234
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deuterate the benzanthracene skeleton in compound 47 and arrive at a deuterated compound as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the anthracene-based compound of Linge as the anthracene host of Fujita because the compound falls within the formula for host of Fujita and Linge teaches that compounds such as compound D1 above provide improve efficiency and lifetime when used as hosts in blue emission layers ([0223]).
As per claims 28 and 29, Fujita teaches:
Further comprising a hole transporting layer between the anode and one of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer and further comprising an electron transporting layer between the cathode and one of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer provided closer to the cathode ([0246]: “An organic EL element 100 illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a substrate 101, a positive electrode 102 provided on the substrate 101, a hole injection layer 103 provided on the positive electrode 102, a hole transport layer 104 provided on the hole injection layer 103, a light emitting layer 105 provided on the hole transport layer 104, an electron transport layer 106 provided on the light emitting layer 105, an electron injection layer 107 provided on the electron transport layer 106, and a negative electrode 108 provided on the electron injection layer 107.”)
As per claim 30, Fujita teaches:
An electronic device comprising the electroluminescence device ([0447]: “The present invention can also be applied to a display apparatus including an organic EL element, a lighting apparatus including an organic EL element, or the like.”)
Claims 10 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US20190280209A1) in view of Linge (US20230225195A1) as applied to claims 1 – 9, 12, 14 – 16 and 18 – 30 above, and further in view of Han (US20170331051A1).
As per claim 13, the prior art combination does not teach:
The compound having the fused ring that includes four or more rings is a compound represented by formula (14X)
PNG
media_image9.png
230
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Han teaches organic light emitting devices of Formula I
PNG
media_image10.png
126
290
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). Han teaches that host materials including compounds of Formula I have higher efficiency and long lifespan, particularly compared to blue host compounds such as pyrene and anthracene-based structures ([0028 – 0030]). A particular compound taught by Han is compound 40
PNG
media_image11.png
182
326
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0043]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R1407 is a group represented by formula (141) wherein Ar1401 is a unsubstituted aryl group having 18 carbon atoms, R1402 is a substituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms. This compound contains a chrysene group as required by claim 1. This compound does not comprise an anthracene skeleton as required by claim 10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute at least one of the host materials of Fujita with a compound of Han, such as compound 40, motivated by the desire to predictably improve the efficiency and lifespan of the devices, as taught by Han ([0028 – 0030]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US20190280209A1) as applied to claims 1 – 9, 12, 14 – 16 and 18 – 30 above, and further in view of Choi (WO2020009433A1, using the provided machine translation).
As per claim 17, the prior art combination teaches anthracene-based hosts of formula (1)
PNG
media_image4.png
186
320
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein X and independently represent substituted aryl groups aryl groups (Fujita, [0011 – 0014]). The prior art combination does not specifically teach compounds wherein L201 or L202 is represented by one of formula (L21) – (L24) as required by the claim.
Choi teaches anthracene-based hosts, which are particularly suitable for use in blue light-emitting layers ([0193]). These compounds are used as host materials for boron-based dopants ([0298]). This is similar to one of the emitting layers of the prior art combination. Choi teaches that the particular combination of materials results in organic electroluminescent devices with lowered driving voltage, and improved efficiency and lifespan ([0337]). A particular anthracene compound taught by Choi is compound 2-64
PNG
media_image12.png
86
504
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. This compound contains a fluoranthene group as required by claim 1. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein L201 is represented by formula L23 wherein Y2 is an oxygen atom; R223 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group and R226 is Ar201 and Ar201 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen; Ar202 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 16 carbon atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the anthracene-based compound of Choi as the anthracene host of the prior art combination because the compound falls within the formula for host of the prior art combination and Choi teaches that compounds such as compound 2-64 above provide lowered driving voltage, and improved efficiency and lifespan when used as hosts in blue emission layers with boron-based dopant compounds ([0337]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789