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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The structure of formula (8) as claimed in claim 6 is not in the written description. The specification describes a formula (8) that is not the formula of claim 6.
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.
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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (WO 2020040298) (Hatakeyama).
In reference to claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8, Hatakeyama teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a host compound (e.g. the compound below, in box [057]), a thermally activated delayed phosphor (e.g. compound CC2TA below [060]) and a compound having a boron atom (e.g. the Boron compound below [0130]) as components of the light emitting layer between an anode and a cathode (Hatakeyama [004] to [005]).
PNG
media_image1.png
108
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
222
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
132
256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama further teaches that the use of these materials as taught realizes a spectrum with good halftone width and a good color, high external quantum efficiency, improved roll-off and long life (Hatakeyama [036]).
Given that Hatakeyama discloses the device configuration that encompasses the presently claimed device, including a light emitting layer comprising the components above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use device configuration, which is both disclosed by Hatakeyama and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: CC2TA reads on a first host wherein fis 2, e is 1, Ar1 is a heterocyclic group having 9 carbon atoms, the host compound reads on formula 6 wherein one of X1 is N, each of Ar2 is a hydrogen or a carbazole, and the boron compound reads on a formula (4) wherein DEFG and H are ach benzene, each Y1 is B, one of X2 is O and each other of X2 is N-Ar3 and Ar3 is phenyl.
For Claim 2: Reads on heterocyclic group having 9 carbon atoms.
For Claim 3: Reads on formula 5.
For Claim 5: Reads on formula (7).
For Claim 7-8: Reads on 0.05 (per the instant specification same as compound 4-121).
In reference to claim 6, Hatakeyama teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a host compound of formula H1 ([0055-[0056]), a thermally activated delayed phosphor (e.g. compound CC2TA below [060]) and a compound having a boron atom (e.g. the Boron compound below [0130]) as components of the light emitting layer between an anode and a cathode (Hatakeyama [004] to [005]).
PNG
media_image4.png
160
184
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
222
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
132
256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for example wherein in the formula H-1, L1 is a heteroarylene that is a triazine ring ([0055] to [0056]).
Hatakeyama discloses the compound H1 that encompasses the presently claimed compound of formula , including wherein L1 is a traizine. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hatakeyama are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound H1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for formula H1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hatakeyama and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hatakeyama further teaches that the use of these materials as taught realizes a spectrum with good halftone width and a good color, high external quantum efficiency, improved roll-off and long life (Hatakeyama [036]).
Given that Hatakeyama discloses the device configuration that encompasses the presently claimed device, including a light emitting layer comprising the components above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use device configuration, which is both disclosed by Hatakeyama and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 6: Reads on formula (8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the present invention is based on a fundamentally different technical concept. Applicant specifically argues that the teaching of Hatakeyama does not assign charge transport functions to different host materials. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing.
Initially, the claims only prefer that hole injection and electron injection occur into different materials and do not require such a scenario. Furthermore, the difference is not actually meaningful. Holes are not really injected, and all charge transport in these devices actually corresponds to the movement of electrons between electrodes. Moreover, the combination of materials is the same regardless of whether Applicant wished to receive electrons or remove electrons or to participate in reverse inter system crossing or emit light.
Similarly, Applicant argues that Hatakeyama designates one host, one dopant and an assistant dopant whereas Applicant claims two hosts and a dopant with a different goal. This argument is not convincing. The designation of the material as a host or dopant does not change its structure or the composition of the resulting layer. Renaming a material or component does not change the structure of the resulting composition. The fact that the instant applicant combines the materials for a different purpose does not differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination gives rise to unexpected results. However, such results do not appear to be a comparison to the prior art of record. Further, there is no indication of the statistical significance of the results and the results do not appear to be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
