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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on November 17, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on February 3, 2026.
Applicant’s election of a compound represented by Formula (1) wherein B is selected from the group of dimethyl-fluorene groups (B-12) to (B-15) in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2 and 3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species wherein B is selected from dibenzo-heterocyclic groups, and a nonelected species wherein B is selected from the group of phenanthrene groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1 and 4 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 14, 2022 and September 17, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have 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 – 8, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je (KR20110042004A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Kitano (US20130048971A1).
As per claim 1, Je teaches:
An organic compound represented by formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
170
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Je teaches compounds of Chemical Formula 1-a
PNG
media_image2.png
142
172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. A particular compound taught by Je is compound 58
PNG
media_image3.png
148
190
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on page 13. This compound contains the dimethylfluorenyl groups but does not contain the claimed linker group A. However, compounds such as compound 22 teach that condensed ring group substituents can be linked to the ring group via a phenylene group
PNG
media_image4.png
118
218
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Furthermore, Kitano teaches similar diazatriphenylene compounds with substituents in the same place
PNG
media_image5.png
200
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0031]). Kitano teaches that the linking group is preferably a phenylene group or a biphenyldiyl group because when carrier-transport skeletons are bonded through arylene groups, conjugation is less likely to extend than in a compound in which a diazatriphenylene ring and a carrier transport skeleton are directly bonded ([0024]), Kitano teaches that this prevents narrowing of the band gap between the HOMO and LUMO levels and allows for high emission efficiency when the compound is used in a light emitting device ([0024]). The linking group taught by Kitano is
PNG
media_image6.png
190
340
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0037]), which is the same as the claimed linking group A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 58 of Je to insert a biphenyldiyl group between the diazatriphenylene and the dimethylfluorenyl substituent motivated by the desire to predictably prevent narrowing of the band gap between the HOMO and LUMO levels and allowing for high emission efficiency when the compound is used in a light emitting device as taught by Kitano ([0024]). When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein each of R1 to R8 is a hydrogen atom; B is selected from B-14 wherein R9 to R15 are all hydrogen atoms.
As per claim 4, Je teaches:
An organic light-emitting element comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic compound layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one layer of the organic compound layer contains the organic compound ([0018]: “The present invention provides an organic light-emitting device having an anode, a cathode, and a layer comprising a condensed aromatic derivative represented by Chemical Formula 1-a and Chemical Formula 1-b between the anode and the cathode.”)
As per claim 5, Je teaches that the organic light-emitting device includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a hole blocking layer, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and an electron blocking layer between the anode and the cathode ([0018]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any layer from the small number of finite number of options for the layers, such as the claimed light-emitting layer, in which to include the compound of Chemical Formula 1-a and Chemical Formula 1-b
As per claim 6, Je teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer further comprises a phosphorescence light-emitting material ([0100]: “It is preferable that the light-emitting layer of the present invention contains… a phosphorescent compound.”)
The content of the organic compound is 30% by mass or more and 99% by mass or less (In Example 1, as described in [0144], a device is produced in which the host material is present in an amount of 90%).
As per claims 7 and 8, Je teaches that the light-emitting layer contains a phosphorescent compound ([0100]). Je does not restrict the phosphorescent compound. However, Je does not specifically teach a phosphorescent organometallic complex with a ligand including a condensed ring of three or more rings, wherein the condensed ring or three or more rings is selected from the group of condensed rings in claim 8.
Kitano teaches phosphorescent dopants for use in light-emitting layers ([0019]). Kitano teaches suitable phosphorescent dopants include a rare earth metal complex such as [Tb(acac)3(Phen)], which contains the phenanthrene ring required by claim 8.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any known phosphorescent dopant, such as [Tb(acac)3(Phen)], which the claimed condensed ring of three or more rings because Je does not restrict the phosphorescent compound and Kitano teaches that [Tb(acac)3(Phen)] was known as a predictably suitable phosphorescent dopant in organic light emitting device.
As per claims 13 and 14, Je teaches that the organic light-emitting device can be used in a white lighting device ([0103]). Je does not specifically teach:
Wherein another light-emitting layer that is stacked on the light-emitting layer and that emits light with a color different from the emission color emitted from the light-emitting layer is further included
Kitano teaches a light emitting element having a plurality of light-emitting units and that when light-emitting units emit light having different colors, it is possible for the light emission to be selected for complementary colors so that a light-emitting element which emits white light can be obtained ([0222 – 0223]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting element of the Je as one light emitting unit in a device with a plurality of light-emitting units so that white light is emitted from the device because Je teaches that the light emitting element can be used in a white lighting device and Kitano teaches that the claimed apparatus with a plurality of stacked light emitting units is a predictably suitable arrangement for organic light emitting elements emitting white light.
Claims 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je (KR20110042004A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Kitano (US20130048971A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Nishide (US20200255358A1).
As per claim 15, the prior art combination does not teach:
A display apparatus comprising a plurality of pixels, wherein at least one of the plurality of pixels includes the organic light emitting element and a transistor connected to the organic light-emitting element
Nishide teaches an organic light-emitting elements ([0001]). Nishide further teaches a display apparatus comprising a plurality of pixels wherein the plurality of pixels include the organic light-emitting element and an active element connected to the organic light-emitting element (Claim 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting element of the prior art combination in a display apparatus as claimed because Nishide teaches that the claimed application is a predictably suitable use for organic light emitting elements.
As per claim 16, the prior art combination does not teach:
A photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising an optical portion having a plurality of lenses; an imaging element for receiving light passed through the optical portion; and a display portion for displaying an image imaged by the imaging element, wherein the display portion includes the organic light emitting element
Nishide teaches an organic light-emitting elements ([0001]). Nishide further teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising an optical unit including a plurality of lenses, an image pickup elements that receives light which as passed through the optical unit and a display unit, wherein the display unit displays information captured by the image and the display unit includes the organic light emitting element (Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting element of the prior art combination in a photoelectric conversion apparatus as claimed because Nishide teaches that the claimed application is a predictably suitable use for organic light emitting elements.
As per claim 17, the prior art combination does not teach:
An electronic apparatus comprising a display portion including the organic light-emitting element, a housing provided with the display portion, and a communications portion that is disposed in the housing and that communicates with an outside
Nishide teaches an organic light-emitting elements ([0001]). Nishide further teaches electronic apparatus comprising a housing, a communication unit that communicates with an external unit and a display unit wherein the display unit comprises the organic light-emitting element (Claim 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting element of the prior art combination in an electronic apparatus as claimed because Nishide teaches that the claimed application is a predictably suitable use for organic light emitting elements.
As per claim 18, the prior art combination does not teach:
An illumination apparatus comprising a light source including the organic light emitting element and a light diffusion portion or an optical filter for passing through light emitted from the light source
Nishide teaches an organic light-emitting elements ([0001]). Nishide further teaches a lighting apparatus comprising a light source and a light diffusion unit or an optical filter, wherein the light source includes the organic light-emitting element (Claim 16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting element of the prior art combination in an illumination apparatus as claimed because Nishide teaches that the claimed application is a predictably suitable use for organic light emitting elements.
As per claim 19, the prior art combination does not teach:
A moving object comprising a lighting fixture including the organic light-emitting element and a bodywork provided with the lighting fixture
Nishide teaches an organic light-emitting elements ([0001]). Nishide further teaches a moving object comprising a body and a lighting fixture disposed on the body, wherein the lighting fixture includes the organic light-emitting element (Claim 17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting element of the prior art combination in a display apparatus as claimed because Nishide teaches that the claimed application is a predictably suitable use for organic light emitting elements.
As per claim 20, the prior art combination does not teach:
An exposure light source of electrophotographic image forming apparatus comprising the organic light-emitting element
Nishide teaches an organic light-emitting elements ([0001]). Nishide further teaches an exposure light source for an electrophotographic image forming apparatus comprising the organic light-emitting element (Claim 18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting element of the prior art combination in an exposure light source of electrophotographic image forming apparatus as claimed because Nishide teaches that the claimed application is a predictably suitable use for organic light emitting elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
As it relates to the elected species, claims 9 – 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 9 – 12, the prior art combination does not teach or suggest with sufficient specificity the use of the compound as a host material in a light-emitting layer with a phosphorescent dopant and a third component, as required by claim 9.
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