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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, 22-25, 28-30, and 32-35 remain ending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the compound shown below wherein m is 1, in the reply filed on 06/04/2025 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/04/2025.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not identify this material. As no claims are drawn to this species alone, the search was broadened in order to identify an examinable species supported by the instant claims and/or specification. By way of amendment, the previously identified examinable has been canceled and therefore a new examinable species was identified as follows: a compound of formula I wherein m is 0, R1 and R5 are each a carbazole, and R2 to R4 and R6 are each methyl.
Claims 1, 22-25, 29-30, 32-33, and 35 are drawn to the elected species with claims 4, 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, 28, and 34 withdrawn as being drawn to an unexamined species.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 22-23, 25, 30, 32-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al (US 2003/0091863) (Hasegawa).
In reference to claims 1, 30, 32-33 and 35, Hasegawa teaches the compound (2) as shown below that reads on the instant claims [0019].
PNG
media_image2.png
195
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on a compound of Formula I wherein m is 0, R1 is carbazole, R2, R3, R4 and R6 are each methyl and R5 is carbazole.
For Claim 30: The compound meets the requirements of a formulation.
For Claim 32: Reads on heteroaryl and alkyl.
For Claim 33: Reads on carbazole.
For Claim 35: Reads on carbazole.
In reference to claim 22, Hasegawa teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer comprising the compound (2) [0073] as shown above for claim 1.
In reference to claim 23, Hasegawa teaches the device as described above for claim 22. Hasegawa does not expressly state that the layer is an emissive layer or that the compound is a host in the layer. However, the device still meets all structural limitations of the claim. Recitation of a different name for an identical material or layer does not differentiate the claimed device from that of the prior art.
In reference to claim 25, Hasegawa teaches the device as described above for claim 22. Hasegawa does not expressly state that the layer is a transporting layer or that the compound is a transporting material in the layer. However, the device still meets all structural limitations of the claim. Recitation of a different name for an identical material or layer does not differentiate the claimed device from that of the prior art.
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:
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.
Claims 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa and further in view of Miura et al (JP 2013048190) (Miura).
In reference to claim 24, Hasegawa teaches the compound (2) as shown below and further teaches that this compound is used in an organic electroluminescent device including a luminous layer and one or more organic carrier transportation layers between a cathode and an anode wherein the carrier transportation layer contains the compound (Hasegawa [0048]; [0051])
PNG
media_image2.png
195
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hasegawa does not expressly teach that the organic luminescent layer comprises a material as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Miura teaches a phosphorescent dopant for use in an organic light emitting device for example the compound D-1 (Miura [0046]) as shown below and further teaches that the use of this compound as a dopant in the light emitting layer of a device improves luminous efficiency and device lifetime (Miura [0018].
PNG
media_image3.png
145
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the light emitting dopant D-1 as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the dopant D-1 as described by Miura in the light emitting layer of the device of Hasegawa in order to improve luminous efficiency and device lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 24: Reads on an iridium complex comprising a ligand
PNG
media_image4.png
255
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein each of X1 to X11 is a carbon, Rb represents tri substitution and is alkyl or a combination of aryl and alkyl groups.
In reference to claim 29, Hasegawa in view of Miura teaches a device as described above for claim 24 and further teaches that such OLED devices are useful in various consumer products including large screen displays and lighting etc. (Miura [0104]). Hasegawa in view of Miura does not exemplify such a device.
However, given that Hasegawa in view of Miura discloses the device that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein it is employed as a consumer product including a large screen display or lighting product, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device type, which is both disclosed by Hasegawa in view of Miura and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jennifer A. Boyd can be reached at (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 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786