DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/27/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/27/2026. In particular, original Claim 1 and newly added Claims 16-21 recite subject matter not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one of an aromatic amine and a carbazole derivative”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of an aromatic amine or a carbazole derivative”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites the phrase “at least one of an aromatic amine and a carbazole derivative”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one of an aromatic amine or a carbazole derivative”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
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 16 and 19 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the first organic compound comprises an indolocarbazole skeleton”. However, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed to recite a specific indolocarbazole, i.e. 11-[4-(biphenyl-4-yl)-6-phenyl-1,3,5- triazin-2-yl]-11,12-dihydro-12-phenylindolo[2,3-a]carbazole (BP- Icz(II)Tzn) as disclosed in Paragraph [0634] of the as-filed Specification, there is no support in the Specification an originally filed to recite the boarder generic limitation “indolocarbazole”, must less the limitation “comprising an indolocarbazole” as recited in the present claim. That is, the Specification discloses only a single specific indolocarbazole compound, and such a limited disclosure does not allow for the broad generic recitation of “comprising an indolocarbazole” which encompasses all possible indolocarbazole compounds, including those not disclosed in the instant Specification.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the first organic compound comprises an indolocarbazole skeleton”. However, while there is support in the Specification as originally filed to recite a specific indolocarbazole, i.e. 11-[4-(biphenyl-4-yl)-6-phenyl-1,3,5- triazin-2-yl]-11,12-dihydro-12-phenylindolo[2,3-a]carbazole (BP- Icz(II)Tzn) as disclosed in Paragraph [0634] of the as-filed Specification, there is no support in the Specification an originally filed to recite the boarder generic limitation “indolocarbazole”, must less the limitation “comprising an indolocarbazole” as recited in the present claim. That is, the Specification discloses only a single specific indolocarbazole compound, and such a limited disclosure does not allow for the broad generic recitation of “comprising an indolocarbazole” which encompasses all possible indolocarbazole compounds, including those not disclosed in the instant Specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites formula (g1-1):
PNG
media_image1.png
110
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
which is already recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Accordingly, it is unclear why claim 4 recites a formula already recited in the independent claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 13, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shitagaki et al (US 2014/0034928) in view of Ji et al (US 2016/0293856).
Regarding claim 1, Shitagaki et al discloses a light emitting element ([0002]), i.e. a light emitting device, comprising an anode (Figure 1B layer 201 and [0090]); a cathode (Figure 1B – layer 305 and [0090]); a hole transport layer (Figure 1B – layer 302 and [0094]) disposed between the anode and cathode; and a light emitting layer (Figure 1B – layer 303 and [0094]) disposed between the hole transport layer and the cathode (Figure 1B and [0088]-[0090]).
The hole transport layer comprises the following compound ([0093] and Page 18 – Compound 136):
PNG
media_image2.png
502
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to General Formula (G1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
172
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 to R4 are hydrogen;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl group;
the integer n is one (1); and
a is n unsubstituted C6arylene group.
Ar1 is represented by General Formula (g1-1):
PNG
media_image4.png
126
192
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R14 represents a bond with General Formula (G1);
R11 and R12 are unsubstituted C1 alkyls; and
R13 and R15 to R20 are hydrogen.
Ar3 is represented by General Formula (g1-2):
PNG
media_image5.png
134
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R26 is a bond to a;
R21 to R25 and R27 to R28 are hydrogen; and
Ar4 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group.
In the disclosed device, the light emitting layer can comprise a host compound such as an aromantic amine or a carbazole derivative ([0132]), corresponding to the second organic compound, and phosphorescent or fluorescent compound, i.e. a light emitting substance ([0125])
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a second compound, the reference does not disclose that the second compound is a triazine derivative as recited in the present claims ([0134]).
Ji et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises a host compound, a phosphorescent dopant, and the following triazine derivative (Abstract, [0063]-[0064], and Page 8 – H21):
PNG
media_image6.png
274
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
as a host compound (Abstract). The compound has excellent charge-transport properties ([0051]) and improves the performance of organic electroluminescent devices (Abstract).
Given that both Shitagaki et al and Ji et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices where the light emitting layer comprises host compounds, and given that Shitagaki et al does not explicitly prohibit other host compounds in the light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compound as taught by Ji et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Shitagaki et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by Shitagaki et al:
PNG
media_image2.png
502
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
Ar2 is an unsubstituted 1-naphthyl. As discussed above R14 represents a bond with the nitrogen in General Formula (G1); and R11 and R12 are unsubstituted C1 alkyls.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. In the compound disclosed by Shitagaki et al:
PNG
media_image7.png
502
531
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
Ar4 is a C6 aryl and not a C10-30 aryl as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula G1 ([0061]):
PNG
media_image8.png
298
270
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar4 can be an aryl having 6 to 25 carbon atoms. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where Ar4 in Formula (G1) of the claims is a C10-30 aryl.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Shitagaki et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
502
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to General Formula (G2):
PNG
media_image9.png
246
380
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R21, R22, and R24 to R28 are hydrogen;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted 1-naphthyl group; and
Ar4 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
Ar1 is represented by General Formula (g1-1):
PNG
media_image4.png
126
192
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R14 represents a bond with the nitrogen;
R13 and R15 to R20 are hydrogen;
R11 and R12 are unsubstituted C1 alkyls.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Shitagaki et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
502
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to General Formula (G3):
PNG
media_image9.png
246
380
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R11 and R12 are unsubstituted C1 alkyls;
R13 to R18, R20 to R22, and R24 to R128 are hydrogen; and
Ar1 is an unsubstituted 1-naphthyl group
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that Shitagaki et al discloses the following compound (Page 18 – Compound 136):
PNG
media_image10.png
388
422
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
which is identical to Compound 100 recited in the present claim.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ji et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
274
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
which comprises an indolocarbazole skeleton.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Ji et al discloses that the compound is a TADF material ([0061]).
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Shitagaki et al discloses that first and second organic compounds form an exciplex ([0172]).
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Ji et al discloses that the compound is a TADF material ([0061]).
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Shitagaki et al discloses that first and second organic compounds form an exciplex ([0172]).
Regarding claim 19, Shitagaki et al discloses a light emitting element ([0002]), i.e. a light emitting device, comprising an anode (Figure 1B layer 201 and [0090]); a cathode (Figure 1B – layer 305 and [0090]); a hole transport layer (Figure 1B – layer 302 and [0094]) disposed between the anode and cathode (Figure 1B); and a light emitting layer (Figure 1B – layer 303 and [0094]) disposed between the hole transport layer and the cathode (Figure 1B and [0088]-[0090]).
The hole transport layer comprises the following compound ([0093] and Page 18 – Compound 136):
PNG
media_image2.png
502
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to General Formula (G1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
172
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 to R4 are hydrogen;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl group;
the integer n is one (1); and
a is n unsubstituted C6arylene group.
Ar1 is represented by General Formula (g1-1):
PNG
media_image4.png
126
192
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R14 represents a bond with General Formula (G1);
R11 and R12 are unsubstituted C1 alkyls; and
R13 and R15 to R20 are hydrogen.
Ar3 is represented by General Formula (g1-2):
PNG
media_image5.png
134
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R26 is a bond to a;
R21 to R25 and R27 to R28 are hydrogen; and
Ar4 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group.
In the disclosed device, the light emitting layer can comprise a phosphorescent material such as platinum complex ([0129]) and a host compound such as an aromantic amine or a carbazole derivative ([0132]), corresponding to the second organic compound.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a second compound, the reference does not disclose that the second compound is a triazine derivative as recited in the present claims ([0134]).
Ji et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises a host compound, a phosphorescent dopant, and the following triazine derivative (Abstract, [0063]-[0064], and Page 8 – H21):
PNG
media_image6.png
274
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
as a host compound (Abstract). The compound has excellent charge-transport properties ([0051]) and improves the performance of organic electroluminescent devices (Abstract).
Given that both Shitagaki et al and Ji et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices where the light emitting layer comprises host compound, and given that Shitagaki et al does not explicitly prohibit other host compounds in the light emitting layer, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the host compound as taught by Ji et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such host compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Shitagaki et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shitagaki et al (US 2014/0034928) and Ji et al (US 2016/0293856) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 13, and 16-21 above, and in view of Shriver et al (see pages of Inorganic Chemistry, Second edition attached to previous Office Action).
The discussion with respect to Shitagaki et al and Ji et al as set forth in Paragraph 18 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Shitagaki et al and Ji et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Shitakagi et a does not disclose that the compound comprises a deuterium as recited in the present claims.
Shriver et al discloses that the physical and chemical properties of isotopically substituted molecules are usually very similar. However, when deuterium (D) is substituted from H, this substitution results in increases in boiling points and bond enthalpies (Pages 374-375).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound disclosed by Shitagaki et al, i.e. substitute a hydrogen for deuterium in order to modify the physical properties of the compound disclosed by Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success.
"An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al (US 2015/0179953).
Regarding claim 4, Mujica-Fernaud et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device ([0152]), i.e. a light emitting device, comprising, in order of stacking: an anode, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, and a cathode ([0154] and [0219]). Accordingly, the hole transport layer is between the anode and cathode, and the light emitting layer is between the hole transport layer and the cathode.
The hole transport layer comprises the following compound ([0163 and [0064] – Formula 12):
PNG
media_image11.png
289
418
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 and R2 are C1-10 alkyls ([0047]);
R3 is hydrogen ([0050]); and
B is a single bond ([0020])
Ar2 is a phenyl-naphthyl group ([0071]), and where the aromatic substituent, i.e. the naphthyl of the phenyl-naphthyl group, is bonded meta to the central nitrogen as exemplified in formula (43) (Page 9):
PNG
media_image12.png
114
186
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Ar1 corresponds to Formula (111) ([0072] and Page 14):
PNG
media_image13.png
210
326
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the reference discloses a compound represented by Formula (G1-1):
PNG
media_image14.png
164
152
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 to R4 are hydrogen.
Ar1 is represented by General Formula (g1-1):
PNG
media_image4.png
126
192
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R15 represents a bond to the nitrogen;
R11 and R12 are C1-10 alkyls; and
R13 to R14, R16, and R17 to R20 are hydrogen.
Ar2 is an unsubstituted 1- or 2-naphthyl, i.e. by symmetry, the linking phenylene group can only bond to the 1- or 2-position of the naphthyl substituent.
Ar3 is represented by General Formula (g1-2):
PNG
media_image5.png
134
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R26 is a bond to a;
R21 to R26 and R27 to R28 are hydrogen; and
Ar4 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group.
The light emitting layer further comprises a phosphorescent dopant ([0157] and [0168]-[0169] and a matrix material formed from a combination of a triazine derivative, corresponding to the recited first organic compound, and an aromatic amine or carbazole derivative, corresponding to the recited second organic compound ([0171] and [0178]).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic light emitting device nor can the claimed organic light emitting device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic light emitting device and the organic light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compounds which are both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the claim amendments the 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections of the claims over Shitagaki et al (US 2014/0034928) is withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Shitagaki et al does not disclose the organic light emitting device as recited in the as-amended claims. However, it is noted that in the rejection set forth above, the deficiency of Shitagaki et al is remedied by Ji et al, which discloses the recited triazine compound and benefits thereof.
Applicants argue that Mujica-Fernaud et al does not disclose the organic light emitting device as recited in the as-amended claims. However, for the reasons discussed above, the reference relevant against the present claims under the 35 U.S.C 103.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights