DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 08/06/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 15-17, 19-24 and 44-48 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 05/06/2026, Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, 15, 19-20 and 24, cancelled claims 2-4, 7, 10, 12-14 and 18, and added new claims 46-48.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, 15, 19-20 and 24, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 05/06/2026 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 11, 14-17, 21-24 and 44-48 are 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.
Claims 1, 11 or 24 recites that the compound does not include a cyano group, which is not supported by original disclosure as filed.
MPEP at §2173.05(i) clearly states that "any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure" and "any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement".
There is no support in the original specification of the instant application that would reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed compound that does not include a cyano group. To the contrary, instant application discloses that the compound can include cyano group (see for example, [0013] of published application). Thus, instant application as originally filed fails to disclose whether the use of cyano is precluded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11, 14-17, 21-24 and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0001479 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0270498 A1) (hereafter referred as “Lee ‘498”).
Regarding claim 1 or 11, Lee discloses a compound represented by formula 8 (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The compound of formula 8 as disclosed by Lee comprises a one group represented by a formula (11) as required by instant claim (see annotated figure); and a single benz[de]anthracene derivative skeleton represented by a formula (1000) (see annotated figure).
Lee further discloses in the formula (1000):
X is an oxygen atom (see formula 8);
R10 to R19 are not mutually bonded (see formula 8);
One of R10 -R19 being a group represented by the formula (11) (see formula1), and the remaining ones each independently a hydrogen atom (see annotated formula 8 in which the substituents of (1000) are hydrogen, R218 is also hydrogen as disclosed in [0029]),
L1 is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 15 ring carbon atoms (see annotated formula 8);
mx is 1;
Ar1 is an aryl group with 3 substituted or unsubstituted benzene rings (see annotated figure); and
the compound does not include a cyano group (see [0029] that discloses alternative options).
However, Lee does not disclose Ar1 is an aryl group with 4 substituted or unsubstituted benzene rings.
Lee ‘498 discloses a compound in which Ar1 is an aryl group with 4 substituted or unsubstituted benzene rings (see formula 1A or 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the aryl group with 4 substituted or unsubstituted benzene rings as taught by Lee ‘498 to form the aryl group of Lee because selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5 or 15, Lee discloses the compound of represented by formula 8, which reads on instant claimed formula 121 or 121A (see annotated compound above).
Regarding claim 6 or 16, Lee further discloses that one of R10 -R19 being a group represented by the formula (11) (see formula 8), and the remaining ones each independently a hydrogen atom (see annotated formula 8 in which the substituents of (1000) are hydrogen, R218 is also hydrogen as disclosed in [0029]),
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the compound represented by formula 8 (see annotated compound above) reads on instant claimed formula 124. Lee as modified by Lee ‘498 further discloses Ar1 is an aryl group with 4 substituted or unsubstituted benzene rings (see formula 1A or 1B) which reads on Ar10 of formula 124. Lee ‘498 further discloses substituents R1-R10 includes C6-C60 aryl group ([0013]), which reads on instant claimed Ar11.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the compound represented by formula 8 (see annotated compound above) reads on instant claimed formula 1240. Lee as modified by Lee ‘498 further discloses Ar1 is an aryl group with 4 substituted or unsubstituted benzene rings (see formula 1A or 1B) which reads on Ar10 of formula 124. Lee ‘498 further discloses substituents R1-R10 includes C6-C60 aryl group ([0013]), which reads on instant claimed Ar11.
Regarding claim 17, Lee further discloses L10 is represented by formula 114 (see annotation as provided above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Lee as modified by Lee ‘498 discloses that Ar1 is represented by formula 1100 (see formula 1A of Lee ‘498).
Regarding claim 20, Lee as modified by Lee ‘498 discloses that R111-R120 not being a bond and represented by hydrogen (see [0013]).
Regarding claim 21, Lee further discloses all of the substituted or unsubstituted groups are unsubstituted group (see compound of formula 8 in which substituents can be hydrogen).
Regarding claim 22-24, Lee discloses an organic electroluminescence device (organic light emitting device, fig. 1, [0060]-[0113] comprising: an anode (first electrode that is an anode, [0062] and fig. 1); a cathode (second electrode that is a cathode, [0113] and fig. 1); and at least one organic or emitting layer (EML layer, [0053] and fig. 1) disposed between the anode (first electrode) and the cathode (second electrode), wherein the at least one emitting layer comprises a first emitting layer (one of Red, Green and white layers, [0056] and claim 17) and a second emitting layer (blue layer, [0056] and claim 17), the first emitting layer comprises a first compound ([0056] and claim 17) as required by claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, the compound of claim 1 reads on compound of claim 24).
Regarding claim 44, Lee further discloses the second emitting layer (blue layer) further comprises a fourth compound that fluoresces, and the fourth compound is a compound that emits light having a main peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480 nm (blue layer has absorption within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 45, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising the organic electroluminescence device (OLED) according to claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23).
Regarding claims 46-48, Lee further discloses that one of R10 -R19 being a group represented by the formula 11/110A/110 (see formula 8), and the remaining ones each independently a hydrogen atom (see annotated formula 8 in which the substituents of (1000) are hydrogen, R218 is also hydrogen as disclosed in [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant argues that Lee or Lee ‘498 fails to disclose the compound as required by the amended claims.
This argument is directed to the claims as amended and is moot in view of the new ground of the rejection as presented above.
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 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.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights