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
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 3/11/2026.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-17 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (US2006/0158102) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US2020/0395547) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US2006/0158102) or in view of Hoshino et al. (JP2016183140) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US2006/0158102) in view of Kim et al (US2016/0204355) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-17 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ 2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claim 1 recites a limitation “wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formla A has a structure symmetric about the X-Y axis, except for the substituent Z”. Claim 1 also recites “linkers L1 and L2, which are same or different”, “Ar1 and Ar2, which are same or different”, and “m1 and m2, which are same or different”,
According the Specification, the compound represented by Chemical Formula A may have a structure symmetric about the X-Y axis, except for the substituent Z, as shown in Diagram A, below. That is, the compound represented by Chemical Formula A has a structure in which the substituents AR1—(L1)m1— and Ar2—(L2)m2— bonded respectively to the pyrene moiety at positions 1 and 6 are structurally identical, and thus is symmetric about the X-Y axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
149
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The recitations in claim 1 are inconsistent with the Specification (L1 and L2, Ar1 and Ar2, or m1 and m2 cannot be different), making the scope of the claim unclear.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9 each recites “Ar1 and Ar2 are same or different”.
Claim 9 recites ““L1 and L2 are same or different”.
Claim 7 recites “in the following structural diagram” but no diagram is shown.
Claim 11 recites Chemical Formula 144 that does not appear to be
symmetric about the X-Y axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
273
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites “L1 and L2 are each selected from an aryl represented by Structure Formula 11, 12, 14, and 15, which are not a phenyl group. However, claim 11, formula 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 116, 117 which depends from claim 1, recites Ar1 and Ar2 are each a phenyl group.
Claim 1 also recites “Ar1 and Ar2 are each selected from an aryl represented by Structure Formula 11, 12, 14, and 15, which are not a phenyl group. However, claim 11, formula 106, 107, 108, 117 which depends from claim 1, recites Ar1 and Ar2 are each a phenyl group.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-17 are also rejected as being depended on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US2020/0395547) in view of Funahashi et al. (US20100156285).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, Kim discloses an organic light-emitting diode device, including: a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode, and a first light-emitting layer (emission layer) including a first host and a first dopant and a second light-emitting layer including a second host and a second dopant, sequentially disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (abstract, para 20-21, 0138). Kim does not disclose at least one of the first host and the second host includes the claimed compound.
Funahashi discloses an organic light-emitting diode device, including at least one of a light-emitting layer including a host and dopant (abstract, para 0050), wherein the host includes at least a compound represented by the following 2b-26 or 2b-13 compound, wherein in compound 2b-26 the linkers L1 and L2 are same and are each represented a single bond, m1=m2=1, Ar1 and Ar2 are same and each is naphthyl, Z is an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), n=2, or in compound 2b-13 the linkers L1 and L2 are same and are each represented a single bond, m1=m2=1, Ar1 and Ar2 are same and each is naphthyl, Z is an unsubstituted aryl of 10 carbon atoms (naphthyl), n=2,
PNG
media_image3.png
242
335
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
175
323
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use the host compound taught by Funahashi as the host in the light emitting layer of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success for providing an organic EL device with a prolonged lifetime with an enhanced efficiency of light emission (para 0016).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the organic light-emitting device comprising: at least one of a hole transport layer and a hole injection layer between the first electrode and the first light-emitting layer; and at least one of an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer between the first light-emitting layer and the second electrode (para 0318-0319).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses at least one of the first dopant in the first light-emitting layer and the second dopant in the second light-emitting layer include compound 217 below, which reads on the claimed chemical formula D3, specifically claimed chemical formula D110.
PNG
media_image5.png
150
331
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
142
299
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses the second light-emitting layer include compound H18 below, which reads on the claimed chemical formula E.
PNG
media_image7.png
165
307
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the first dopant in the first light-emitting layer and the second dopant in the second light-emitting layer can also include compound 218 below, which reads on the claimed chemical formula D3, wherein X1=B, Y1=NR61, R61= substituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms and Y2 are NR66, R66= unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms, T1 and T2 are substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms, and T3 are unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring of 6 carbon atoms.
PNG
media_image8.png
107
232
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
156
422
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US2020/0395547) in view of Funahashi et al. (US20100156285) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US2016/0204355).
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Kim ‘547 in view of Funahashi discloses an organic light-emitting diode device described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Kim ‘547 discloses the host material include aromatic compounds having anthracene as their basic skeleton (compound H18). Kim ‘547 does not disclose the claimed anthracene derivative as recited in claim 15. Kim ‘355 discloses an anthracene derivative represented by chemical formula B, including the below formula 41, which reads on the claimed compound recited in claims 14 and 15, specifically claimed chemical formula E-2, wherein Ar5 is an aryl group (phenyl), R51 is an aryl group (phenyl), and k=1. Kim ‘355 discloses that the anthracene derivative can be used as a host in a light-emitting layer (para 0080). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use the anthracene derivative taught by Kim ‘355 as the second host in the second light emitting layer of Kim ‘547 with a reasonable expectation of success for providing the light emitting layer with high efficiency and a long lifetime (para 0013).
PNG
media_image10.png
167
305
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
249
272
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kim ‘355 discloses the anthracene derivative bears at least one deuterium atom (para 0083).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
3/27/2026
Prosecution Insights