DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 12/19/25.
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
The rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2008/0238300 A1) in view of Saitoh et al. (WO 2004/020387 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 09/10/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 2 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2008/0238300 A1) in view of Saitoh et al. (WO 2004/020387 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 09/10/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 2 and 9-14 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 broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, Claim 2, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites the broad recitation that the “mixture of two compounds” in the hole-transporting layer has “one being represented by Formula 1-2, and the other being represented by Formula 1-2, 1-3, or 1-4” and the claim also recites “wherein the compound of Formula 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 are selected from the group consisting of the following compounds:” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2 and 9-14 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.
Claim 2, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites that the compounds of Formula 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 are selected from the group consisting of 1-17’ to 1-77’; however, the vast majority of compounds of 1-17’ to 1-77’ are not encompassed by Formulae 1-2, 1-3, or 1-4. For instance, notice that X, Y, and Z in the formulae can only be CR’R”. Hence, the Office has interpreted the claim to instead recite that the compounds in the mixture are selected from the group consisting of 1-17’ to 1-77’ for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 2 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2008/0238300 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2013/0105771 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 12, Park et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic electric element):
PNG
media_image1.png
394
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3). Park et al. discloses that the hole-transporting layer comprises a mixture of “at least two materials,” including a mixture of an organic compound and one or more other organic compounds ([0057]); the ratio of the first and second (organic) material is at 1:1 ([0059]). The hole-transporting material includes aromatic amines ([0069]); the light-emitting layer comprises at least one emitter ([0028]). Additional organic compounds can be further added ([0057]). However, Park et al. does not explicitly disclose the compounds according to any of the formulae as defined by the Applicant.
Ryu et al. discloses the following compounds:
PNG
media_image2.png
340
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
273
373
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 60) (corresponding to 1-28’ and 1-29’, respectively, as recited in the Applicant in Claim 1). Ryu et al. discloses its inventive compounds as hole-transporting material in the hole-transporting layer of an organic EL device with excellent hole-transporting properties, with the ability to obtain film stability; organic films are formed via methods such as spin coating ([0026], [0101], [0126]). Ryu et al. discloses that its inventive compounds are also electron-transporting as well as electron-blocking ([0104], [0109]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the above compounds (chosen from a highly finite list of compounds) as disclosed by Ryu et al. to the hole-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Park et al. (as first and second organic materials) via methods such as spin coating. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Ryu et al., which teaches that its inventive compounds are compounds with excellent hole-transporting properties and the ability to form stable films.
Regarding Claim 9, Ryu et al. discloses that its inventive compounds are encompassed by the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
196
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0016]) where X, Y = independently O and S (among others) ([0017]); additional embodiments are disclosed including the following which can be utilized (and thus further added to the mixture in the hole-transporting layer):
PNG
media_image5.png
446
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 61). However, Ryu et al. does not explicitly disclose a further compound that corresponds to any of the compounds as recited in Claim 1. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound [A-336] above such that the resulting compound corresponds to 1-55’. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the exchange of one atom (S) for a functional equivalent (O) of the same group selected from a highly finite list (of viable groups for X or Y) as taught by Ryu et al. and easily envisioned from the scope of its general formula, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 10, notice that the lower half of the light-emitting layer and the upper half of the hole-transporting layer (comprising the mixture as describe above) together results in a layer that is inherently light-emitting, which can thus be defined as an “emitting auxiliary layer.”
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Park et al. does not explicitly disclose a display device.
Ryu et al. discloses the construction of display devices comprising its organic EL elements ([0127]). It would have been obvious to utilize the resulting product produced above to form electronic devices such as displays (OLEDs). The motivation is provided by the fact that the disclosure of Ryu et al. is directed to a useful commercial application for an organic EL device, thus rendering the utilization predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-13 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights