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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed May 26, 2026, which cancels claims 1-3 and 6-12. Claims 4, 5, and 13-19 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed May 26, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogiwara et al. (US 2016/0211462) in view of Ohsawa et al. (WO 2019/215535) as set forth in the Office action mailed February 24, 2026. The applicant cancels claims 1-3 and 6-12; therefore, the claims are no longer pending.
Response to Arguments
The amendment that comprised added claims 13-19 was missed by the examiner and are addressed in the rejection below.
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ohsawa teaches that one can improve emission efficiency by attaching protecting groups to the fluorescent materials and teaches that the number of protecting groups should be 5 or more (abstract and paragraph [0123]). Although the compounds of Ohsawa are not bisanthracene compound, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar improvements for the bisanthracene compounds of Ogiwara. The bisanthracene compounds of Ogiwara are used for the same purpose as the compounds of Ohsawa so one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a similar outcome. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that there is no basis for the assertion that the modification would have resulted in improved emission efficiency, the Office points out that Ohsawa teaches that one can improve emission efficiency by attaching protecting groups to the fluorescent materials and teaches that the number of protecting groups should be 5 or more (abstract and paragraph [0123]). This would teach one of ordinary skill in the art that one would expect an improvement in emission efficiency and the applicant has not shown that teaching by Ohsawa is not true. The applicant’s argument is no persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument of unexpected results, the results are commensurate in scope with the claims. The Office points out that applicant’s claimed are just directed to a compound and all the results are for using the compound in a device. The components of electroluminescent devices has significant affect on observed properties. It is unclear if is just the compound itself causing the observed results or the selection of all the compounds in the different layers of the device causing the observed results. The applicant not provide any unexpected results directed to only the compound. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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(s) 4, 5, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogiwara et al. (US 2016/0211462) (hereafter “Ogiwara”) in view of Ohsawa et al. (WO 2019/215535), where Ohsawa et al. (US 20210057667) (hereafter “Ohsawa”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 13-16, Ogiwara teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0272]-[0282]). Ogiwara teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a first compound (TADF material) and a second material (arylamine compound), and can further comprise a phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs [0029], [0031], and [0107]). Ogiwara teaches that the second compound is a fluorescent emitter and can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
147
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
113
213
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
180
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0107] and [0137]).
Ogiwara does not teach where the bisanthracene arylamine compounds comprise the applicant’s claimed substitution pattern.
Ohsawa teaches anthracene arylamine compounds for use as fluorescent dopants (paragraph [0135]). Ohsawa teaches that one can improve emission efficiency by attaching protecting groups to the fluorescent materials and teaches that the number of protecting groups should be 5 or more (abstract and paragraph [0123]). Ohsawa teaches the following fluorescent compounds with protecting groups,
PNG
media_image4.png
251
198
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
275
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
257
204
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
372
304
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image8.png
280
206
media_image8.png
Greyscale
are few examples (paragraph [0268]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compounds Ogiwara to have the protecting groups as taught by Ohsawa. The motivation would have been to improve the emission efficiency of the electroluminescent device. This would leave to the following compounds,
PNG
media_image9.png
266
191
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image10.png
257
202
media_image10.png
Greyscale
as examples.
Regarding claims 17-19, Ogiwara teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in an electronic device (light emitting apparatus) (paragraph [0217]).
Ogiwara does not teach the structure of the electronic device (light emitting apparatus).
Ohsawa teaches a similar electroluminescent device that can be used in an electronic device (light emitting apparatus) (paragraphs [0445-[0447]). Ohsawa teaches that the electronic apparatus can comprise at least one transistor and a substrate, the electronic device contains the electron apparatus and comprises a microphone, camera, operation button, external connection portion, or a speaker, and teaches a light device comprising the electronic device and a housing, cover, or support (paragraphs [0031], [0338], and [0396]-[0433]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before, the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to use the electroluminescent device of Ogiwara in the light emitting apparatus, electronic device, and lighting device of Ohsawa. Both Ogiwara and Ohsawa teach similar electroluminescent device and Ogiwara teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in an electronic device, but does not teach the structure of the device. Ohsawa teaches the structure of the light emitting apparatus, electronic device, and lighting device that electroluminescent devices can be used in; therefore, it would have been obvious try to use the electroluminescent device of Ogiwara in the light emitting apparatus, electronic device, and lighting device of Ohsawa and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the electroluminescent device of Ogiwara can be used successfully in a light emitting apparatus, electronic device, and lighting device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights