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All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/10/2026.
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 8/10/2026. In particular, original Claims 3 has been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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 3, 5, 7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukagawa et al (US 2022/0310937, cited on IDS filed on 7/24/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Fukagawa et al discloses the following compound ([0306] – Synthesis Example 4 – Compound 2-4):
PNG
media_image1.png
216
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to General Formula (G2) of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
162
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where R8 corresponds to Structural Formula (R-1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
74
82
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
In General Formula (G2) R1, R3, and R6 are hydrogen, and therefore, at least two (2) of R1, R3, R6, and R8 are not a group other than hydrogen as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following general formula ([0024] – (1)):
PNG
media_image4.png
176
140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where n is an integer from 1 to 4 ([0024]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where the phenanthroline core (corresponding to R1 in formula (1)) of Compound 2-4 possesses two (2) substituents corresponding to recited Structural Formula (R-1) and the remaining groups are hydrogen.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound 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 compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Fukagawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
176
140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
n is an integer from 1 to 4. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in General Formula (G3):
PNG
media_image5.png
148
172
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
R1 and R8 both correspond to Structural Formula (R-1).
Regarding claim 7, Fukagawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
176
140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
n is an integer from 1 to 4. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in General Formula (G4):
PNG
media_image6.png
144
164
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
R3 and R6 both correspond to Structural Formula (R-1).
Regarding claim 12, Fukagawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches a compound encompassed by the present claims, and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the glass transition temperature of the organic compound is higher than or equal to 70 ºC, would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Regarding claim 13, Fukagawa et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the disclosed compound (Abstract and Title). Accordingly, the reference discloses a light emitting device as recited in the present claims.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al (US 2006/0188745) and Fukagawa et al (US 2022/0310937, cited on IDS filed on 7/24/2023).
Regarding claim 14, Liao et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image7.png
387
525
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises an anode, i.e. a first electrode, and a cathode, i.e. a second electrode. Between the electrodes, the device comprises first, second, up to N-electroluminescent (N-EL) units, i.e. emission units, between the anode and cathode (Abstract and Figure 1). Thus, the first and third EL units correspond to the recited first and second light emitting units, while the second EL unit corresponds to the recited intermediate layer.
While the reference discloses that the EL units, including the second EL unit comprise an electron transport layer ([0029]), the reference does not disclose that the electron injection layer comprises the organic compound corresponding to recited Formula G2.
Fukagawa et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, where the electron transport layer comprises the following compound (Abstract, [0001], and [0306] – Synthesis Example 4 – Compound 2-4):
PNG
media_image1.png
216
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to General Formula (G2) of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
162
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where R8 corresponds to Structural Formula (R-1) of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
74
82
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
In General Formula (G2) R1, R3, and R6 are hydrogen, and therefore, at least two (2) of R1, R3, R6, and R8 are not a group other than hydrogen as required by the present claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following general formula ([0024] – (1)):
PNG
media_image4.png
176
140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where n is an integer from 1 to 4 ([0024]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where the phenanthroline core (corresponding to R1 in formula (1)) of Compound 2-4 possesses two (2) substituents corresponding to recited Structural Formula (R-1) and the remaining groups are hydrogen.
The reference discloses that the thin film comprising the disclosed compound results in excellent electron injection properties (Abstract and [0093]).
Given that both Liao et al and Fukagawa et al are drawn to light emitting devices comprising electron transport layers, and in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Fukagawa et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the electron transport layer of the device disclosed by Liao et al in order to obtain an electron transport layer with excellent injection properties with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 9-11 are allowable over the “closest prior art Fukagawa et al (US 2022/0310937, cited on IDS filed on 7/24/2023) for the following reasons.
Fukagawa et al discloses a compound encompassed by the following general formula ([0024] – (1)):
PNG
media_image4.png
176
140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where n is an integer from 1 to 4 and R1 is an optionally substituted heterocyclic group such as phenanthroline. Accordingly the reference discloses a compound with a single phenanthroline core and possessing multiple substituents corresponding to Structural Formula (R-1).
Claim 2 requires that the compound possesses two (2) phenanthroline groups, i.e. represented by recited Formulas (G1) and (g1):
PNG
media_image8.png
162
186
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
158
192
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
and two (2) groups represented by Structural Formula (R-1):
PNG
media_image10.png
90
104
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
However, the formula disclosed by the reference only admits a single occurrence of the phenanthroline core, and therefore, the reference does not disclose or suggest the compounds as required by claim 2.
If rewritten as indicated above, claim 8 would be allowable over the “closest” prior art Fukagawa et al (US 2022/0310937, cited on IDS filed on 7/24/2023) for the following reasons.
Fukagawa et al discloses a compound encompassed by the following general formula ([0024] – (1)):
PNG
media_image4.png
176
140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where n is an integer from 1 to 4 and R1 is an optionally substituted heterocyclic group such as phenanthroline. Accordingly the reference discloses a compound with a single phenanthroline core and possessing multiple substituents corresponding to Structural Formula (R-1). Claim 8 requires that the compound possesses two (2) phenanthroline groups, i.e. represented by recited Formulas (G2) and (g4):
PNG
media_image11.png
172
186
media_image11.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image12.png
144
186
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
and two (2) groups represented by Structural Formula (R-1):
PNG
media_image10.png
90
104
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
However, the formula disclosed by the reference only admits a single occurrence of the phenanthroline core, and therefore, the reference does not disclose or suggest the compounds as required by claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 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 amendments to claim 2, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of this claim and its dependent claims is withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Compound 2-4 of Fukagawa:
PNG
media_image1.png
216
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
only includes one [Chem. 1] substituent and the reference does not describe or suggest where additional [Chem. 1.] substituent, if present, would be bonded to the phenanthroline skeleton, i.e. the reference does not describe or suggest to which of R1, R3 or R6, in any, additional [Chem. 1] substituent would be bonded. However, it is noted that on the phenanthroline skeleton, there are a limited number of possible bonding positions available for any substituent, including those encompassed by [Chem 1]. Given the disclosure of the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
176
140
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where n is an integer from 1 to 4 and R1 is phenanthroline skeleton, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that one of ordinary skill in the art could select any of the possible bonding positions, including any two (2) selected from R1, R3, R6, and R8 in Formula (G2):
PNG
media_image2.png
162
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
and thereby, arrive at the instantly claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
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