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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 18, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on June 18, 2026.
Claims 1, 9 and 12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 31 and 32 have been added.
Claims 4, 8, 10 and 13 have been canceled. Claim 11 has been cancelled previously.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9, 12, and 14 – 32 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 18, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 9, 12 and 14 – 16 and 18 – 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Linge as set forth in the office action filed March 19, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 18, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Linge and further in view of Han as set forth in the office action filed March 19, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 18, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita and further in view of Choi as set forth in the office action filed March 19, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9, 12, and 14 – 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites that the second compound comprises a fused ring including four or more rings. However, claim 1, upon which claim 6 is dependent, recites that the second compound is a compound having a fused ring that includes four or more rings. Therefore, claim 6 appears to fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 – 3, 5, 6, 9, 19 – 24, and 26 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20170331051A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, 5, 6, 9, 31 and 32, Han teaches:
An organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, a first emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode and comprising a first compound, and a second emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode and comprising 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 (Han teaches an OLED comprising a first and second electrode, with an emission layer in between ([0016]). As the first and second emission layers are not defined compositionally as different, they are interpreted as sublayers of the emission layer of Han. Han teaches that the emission layer includes a compound of Formula 1 ([0067])
PNG
media_image1.png
128
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. A particular compound within the scope of Formula 1 is compound 40
PNG
media_image2.png
168
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. As claim 1 does not require that the first and second compound are different, one molecule of compound 40 is interpreted as the claimed first compound and another molecule of compound 40 is interpreted as the claimed second compound. Both the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer have a compound having at least one deuterium atom. The first compound comprises a chrysene skeleton as required by claim 1, and a deuterium atom as required by claims 2 and 3. The second compound comprises a fused ring that includes four or more rings that is an unsubstituted heterocycle, a deuterium atom as required by claims 2 and 5, and a xanthene skeleton as required by claim 9. The second compound does not contain an anthracene skeleton as required by claim 31. The second compound is represented by Formula 14X
PNG
media_image3.png
156
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in claim 32 wherein R1402 and R1408 are represented by a group of Formula
PNG
media_image4.png
66
138
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and the remaining R groups are hydrogen; in Formula (141), L1401 is a direct bond and Ar1401 in one instance is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms and in the other instance is an unsubstituted aryl group having 18 ring carbon atoms.)
While Han does not teach a particular device structure with a compound 40 in the emission layer as required by the claim, Han teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Han as Han demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 19 – 22, Han teaches:
Wherein the first emitting layer further comprises a third compound, and the third compound is a compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480nm 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 (Han teaches blue fluorescent dopants, such as DPAVBi can be used as the dopant material ([0154]). Since it emits blue light, it is interpreted as emitting light in the claimed range. As compounds 3 and 4 are not required to be different, DPAVBi is interpreted as both compounds. This compound is not a metal complex as required by claims 20 and 22.)
As per claims 23 and 24, Han teaches:
Wherein the first compound is a host material and the second compound is a host material ([0067]: “The host may include the compound of Formula 1 according to an embodiment.”)
As per claim 26, Han teaches:
Wherein the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer are in direct contact with each other (As the layers are interpreted as sublayers of the emission layer of Han, they would naturally be in direct contact with each other, as claimed.)
As per claim 27, Han teaches:
Wherein the second emitting layer is provided between the first emitting layer and the cathode (As the layers are interpreted as sublayers of the emission layer, the sublayer closer to the cathode can be selected as the second emitting layer as claimed.)
As per claims 28 and 29, Han teaches:
Further comprises a hole transporting layer between the anode and one of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer provided closer to the anode, and further comprises an electron transporting layer between the cathode and one of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer provided closer to the cathode ([0051]: “The organic layer 150 may further include a hole transport region between the first electrode 110 and the emission layer, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode 190.”)
As per claim 30, Han teaches:
An electronic device comprising the organic electroluminescence device (As an OLED is an electronic device, Han meets the claimed limitations.)
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 12, 19 – 24, and 26 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20200111986A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 12, and 31, Han teaches:
An organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, a first emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode and comprising a first compound, and a second emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode and comprising 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 (Kim teaches an OLED comprising a first and second electrode, with an emission layer in between ([Abstract]). As the first and second emission layers are not defined compositionally as different, they are interpreted as sublayers of the emission layer of Kim. In the Examples, Kim teaches that the emission layer includes a compound of Formula 1 ([0383])
PNG
media_image5.png
188
296
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. A particular compound within the scope of Formula 1 is compound C44
PNG
media_image6.png
312
496
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. As claim 1 does not require that the first and second compound are different, one molecule of compound C44 is interpreted as the claimed first compound and another molecule of compound C44 is interpreted as the claimed second compound. While compound C44 does not contain a deuterium atom, in the definition for Formula 1, the substituents are taught to include deuterium ([0009]). Furthermore, Kim teaches compounds including compound C25
PNG
media_image7.png
138
232
media_image7.png
Greyscale
which contains deuterium atom. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify compound C44 to include a deuterium atom in one of the hydrogen positions shown. When modified in this may, modified compound C44 reads on the claimed Formula wherein both the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer have a compound having at least one deuterium atom. The first compound comprises a benzanthracene skeleton as required by claim 1, a deuterium atom as required by claims 2 and 3. The first compound reads on formula (1X) in claim 12
PNG
media_image8.png
282
248
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein R1111 and R1112 are represented by formula (11X) wherein L1101 is a single bond and one of the Ar1101 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 17 ring atoms and the other Ar1101 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms. The second compound comprises a fused ring that includes four or more rings that is an unsubstituted heterocycle, and a deuterium atom as required by claims 2 and 5. As the second compound only contains one deuterium, it is interpreted as containing “substantially comprising no deuterium” as required by claim 7.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan in OLEDs ([0126]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
While Kim does not teach a particular device structure with a compound 44 in the emission layer as required by the claim, Kim teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Kim as Kim demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 19 – 22, Kim teaches:
Wherein the first emitting layer further comprises a third compound, and the third compound is a compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480nm 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 (Kim teaches blue fluorescent dopants, such as
PNG
media_image9.png
270
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
can be used as the dopant material ([0272]). This compound the same as compounds taught as suitable for Compound 3 and Compound 4 in the specification as filed on Page 431. Therefore, it is interpreted as emitting light in the claimed range. As compounds 3 and 4 are not required to be different, the above compound is interpreted as both compounds. This compound is not a metal complex as required by claims 20 and 22.)
As per claims 23 and 24, Kim teaches:
Wherein the first compound is a host material and the second compound is a host material (In the Examples, Kim teaches that the emission layers contain a host material of a compound C1, which is of the same Formula as compound C44 above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use compound C44 as a host material in an emission material as claimed.)
As per claim 26, Kim teaches:
Wherein the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer are in direct contact with each other (As the layers are interpreted as sublayers of the emission layer of Kim, they would naturally be in direct contact with each other, as claimed.)
As per claim 27, Kim teaches:
Wherein the second emitting layer is provided between the first emitting layer and the cathode (As the layers are interpreted as sublayers of the emission layer, the sublayer closer to the cathode can be selected as the second emitting layer as claimed.)
As per claims 28 and 29, Kim teaches:
Further comprises a hole transporting layer between the anode and one of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer provided closer to the anode, and further comprises an electron transporting layer between the cathode and one of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer provided closer to the cathode ([0135 – 0136]: “The organic layer 150 is on the first electrode 110. The organic layer 150 may include the emission layer, the mixed layer, and the hole transport region. The organic layer 150 may further include an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode 190.”)
As per claim 30, Kim teaches:
An electronic device comprising the organic electroluminescence device (As an OLED is an electronic device, Kim meets the claimed limitations.)
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 14 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US20170110667A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 14 – 18, and 31, Nishimura teaches:
An organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, a first emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode and comprising a first compound, and a second emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode and comprising 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 (Abstract: “An organic electroluminescence device includes an anode, a cathode, and an emitting layer, in which the emitting layer contains a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound.” The claimed first and second emitting layers are interpreted as sublayers of the emitting layer of Nishimura. Nishimura teaches that the first compound is represented by formula (1)
PNG
media_image10.png
152
308
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0057]) and the second compound is represented by formula (21)
PNG
media_image11.png
156
306
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0157]). A particular compound taught by Nishimura within the scope of formula (1) is compound BH-5
PNG
media_image12.png
196
356
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0332]). A particular compound within the scope of formula (21) is compound CH-1
PNG
media_image13.png
110
318
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0332]). While these compounds do not explicitly contain a deuterium atom, Nishimura teaches that hydrogen atoms include isotopes such as deuterium ([0308]). 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 replace one of the hydrogen atoms in each of compounds BH-5 and CH-1 with a deuterium. When modified in this may, the modified compounds read on the claimed Formula wherein both the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer have a compound having at least one deuterium atom. The first compound, which is interpreted as modified CH-1 comprises a fluoranthrene skeleton as required by claim 1, and a deuterium atom as required by claims 2 and 3. The second compound, which is interpreted as modified BH-5 comprises a fused ring that includes four or more rings that is an unsubstituted heterocycle, and a deuterium atom as required by claims 2 and 5. As the second compound only contains one deuterium, it is interpreted as containing “substantially comprising no deuterium” as required by claim 7. The second compound reads on formula (2)
PNG
media_image14.png
258
272
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, wherein L201 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms; L202 is a direct bond; Ar201 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms; Ar202 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 17 ring atoms, represented by formula (23) in claim 16 wherein X2 is oxygen and R217 and R218 are bonded to form a substituted monocyclic ring.)
Nishimura includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Nishimura being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan in OLEDs ([0126]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
While Nishimura does not teach a particular device structure with compounds CH-1 and BH-5 in the emission layer as required by the claim, Nishimura teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Nishimura as Nishimura demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 19 – 22, Nishimura teaches:
Wherein the first emitting layer further comprises a third compound, and the third compound is a compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480nm 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 ([0243]: “The third compound preferably exhibits a blue fluorescence.” As the third compound emits in the blue light range, it is interpreted as emitting light in the claimed range. As compounds 3 and 4 are not required to be different, the above compound is interpreted as both compounds. This compound is not a metal complex as required by claims 20 and 22.)
As per claims 23 and 24, Nishimura teaches:
Wherein the first compound is a host material and the second compound is a host material ([0255]: “In the emitting layer 5, it is preferable to employ a doping system in which the first compound is used as a host material, the second compound is used as a co-host material, and the third compound is used as a dopant material.”)
As per claim 25, Nishimura teaches:
Wherein a triplet energy T1(M1) of the first compound is different from a triplet energy T1(M2) of the second compound ([0042]: “The triplet energy T(M1) of the first compound and a triplet energy T(M2) of the second compound preferably satisfy a relationship of a numerical formula (Numerical Formula 7) below
PNG
media_image15.png
30
236
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.”)
As per claim 26, Nishimura teaches:
Wherein the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer are in direct contact with each other (As the layers are interpreted as sublayers of the emission layer of Nishimura, they would naturally be in direct contact with each other, as claimed.)
As per claim 27, Nishimura teaches:
Wherein the second emitting layer is provided between the first emitting layer and the cathode (As the layers are interpreted as sublayers of the emission layer, the sublayer closer to the cathode can be selected as the second emitting layer as claimed.)
As per claims 28 and 29, Nishimura teaches:
Further comprises a hole transporting layer between the anode and one of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer provided closer to the anode, and further comprises an electron transporting layer between the cathode and one of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer provided closer to the cathode ([0029 - 0030]: “An organic EL device 1 shown in FIG. 1 includes a substrate 2, an anode 3, a cathode 4 and an organic layer 10 disposed between the anode 3 and the cathode 4. The organic layer 10 includes a hole injecting layer 6, hole transporting layer 7, emitting layer 5, electron transporting layer 8, and electron injecting layer 9 which are sequentially laminated from the anode 3.”)
As per claim 30, Nishimura teaches:
An electronic device comprising the organic electroluminescence device (As an OLED is an electronic device, Nishimura meets the claimed limitations.)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights