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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of specie IV in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 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)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-040829 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nishizeki discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and at least one light-emitting layer between the positive and negative electrodes, wherein the light-emitting layer comprises at least one of compound 1H-82 (
PNG
media_image1.png
206
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) comprising a partial structure represented by general formula 5 (
PNG
media_image2.png
151
120
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)(see claim 1 and paragraph [0245]).
Compound IH-82 of Nishizeki is the same as the compound of chemical formula I of claims 1 and 4, wherein: R1, R3-R6 and R8-R10 are hydrogen; R7 is substituted with a phenyl group and a dimethyl group and has a heteroaryl group having 14 carbon atoms,; and R2 is structural formula 1, wherein X is a single bond, R12 is bonded to X, R11 and R13-R18 are hydrogen, z is CR19R20, and R19 and R20 are an unsubstituted alkyl group having one carbon atom, and Ar is an unsubstituted aryl group having six carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 2, the claimed compound is derived by changing the binding positions of substituents in view of the feature disclosed in NISHIZEKI wherein X4 of general formula 10 (
PNG
media_image3.png
165
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) can be a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group (see claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, the claimed compound is derived by changing the type of substituents and the number of m and n, in view of feature disclosed in Nishizeki wherein in general formula 7 (
PNG
media_image4.png
161
349
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) partially comprising general formula 5, ml and n1 are each an integer of 0-6 and m1+n1 ≤6 (see claims 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 5, NISHIZEKI indicates that an electron injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer and the like are used as constituent layers of an organic EL device (see paragraphs [0291][0295]).
With respect to claim 6, NISHIZEKI indicates that an organic compound comprising general formula 5 as a partial structure is included as a host compound (see paragraph [0189]).
With respect to claim 8, NISHIZEKI indicates that the lightemitting layer can be formed through a vacuum deposition method (see paragraph [0266]).
With respect to claim 9, NISHIZEKI indicates that the organic EL device is used in a display device, a display, a lighting device, and the like (see paragraph [0376]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizeki as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (KR 10-2017-0130435 A)
Regarding claim 7, Nishizeki does not disclose a dopant comprises at least one compound represented by any one of [chemical formula D1] to [chemical formula D10].
Hatakeyama discloses a composition for forming a light-emitting layer, comprising a compound of general formula B-2 (
PNG
media_image5.png
78
158
media_image5.png
Greyscale
), wherein Ar is heteroaryl and n is an integer of 1 to a maximum substitutable number) as a host component, and a first component of compound 1-1152 (
PNG
media_image6.png
135
148
media_image6.png
Greyscale
) ) as a dopant component of the light- emitting layer; and an organic electroluminescent device manufactured by using the composition (see claims 1 and 23, paragraphs [ 0001], [ 0178] and [ 0598], and table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the dopant as taught by Hatakeyama in the light emitting layer of Nishizeki 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.
Conclusion
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 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 at 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 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights