DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 10/09/25.
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 objection to Claims 1 and 3-15 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/15/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 17 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/15/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1 and 3-15 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/15/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1 and 3-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0067387 A1) in view of Lee et al. (Thin Solid Films 520 (2011) 95-100) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/15/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1 and 3-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0067387 A1) in view of Song et al. (Huaxue Yanjiu (2003), 14(3), 1-4) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 07/15/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0067387 A1) in view of Lee et al. (Thin Solid Films 520 (2011) 95-100).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-15, Kim et al. discloses a method for forming the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image1.png
501
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 4) comprising substrate (1), anode (3), hole-injecting layer (5), hole-transporting layer (7), light-emitting layer (9), electron-transporting layer (11), electron-injecting layer (13), and cathode (15) ([0105]); the layers (including the light-emitting layer) are formed via “any known film forming techniques,” such as vapor deposition and spin coating (which involves application of material dissolved in solution over a surface, with subsequent evaporation of solvent) in a laminated construction starting from the substrate ([0019], [0123], [0148], [0216]-[0218]). The (transparent) anode comprises materials such as ITO and silver; the cathode comprises metals such as aluminum, magnesium, and silver ([0127], [0130]). An embodiment is disclosed wherein the hole-transporting layer is 60 nm, while the thickness of the electron-transporting/injecting layer is 30 nm ([0218]). Kim et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises a host (matrix) material in combination with dopant material which are co-deposited and formed into a solid film ([0019], [0098], [0227]); in an embodiment, its inventive compound serves as host material while other (non-Formula I) compound serves dopant material ([0112], [0120]-[0121]). The emission is either fluorescent or phosphorescent ([0021]). However, Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the fluorescent compounds as recited by the Applicant.
Lee et al. discloses the following “efficient” emitting material for an organic EL device (OLED) which is utilized as dopant in the light-emitting layer to result in luminous, power, and external quantum efficiency (Abstract; page 95):
PNG
media_image2.png
124
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 97) comprising diphenylamino (“electron donating,” page 95) and diphenylethylenyl groups (inherently electron-withdrawing due to delocalization of the π-electrons into the two phenyl substituent groups) such that n”’ = 1, R = electron-withdrawing substituent (diphenylethylenyl), and R’ = electron-donating substituent (diphenylamino) of the following Applicant’s formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
76
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. It would have been obvious to incorporate 3 as disclosed by Lee et al. as dopant material into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Lee et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results luminous, power, and external quantum efficiency of the device.
Regarding Claim 6, notice that if the light-emitting layer (9) is formed via vapor deposition, there is a continual application of light-emitting layers (of arbitrary thicknesses) until a light-emitting layer of a desired thickness is reached.
11. Claims 1, 3-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0067387 A1) in view of Song et al. (Huaxue Yanjiu (2003), 14(3), 1-4).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, and 18, Kim et al. discloses a method for forming the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image1.png
501
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 4) comprising substrate (1), anode (3), hole-injecting layer (5), hole-transporting layer (7), light-emitting layer (9), electron-transporting layer (11), electron-injecting layer (13), and cathode (15) ([0105]); the layers (including the light-emitting layer) are formed via “any known film forming techniques,” such as vapor deposition and spin coating (which involves application of material dissolved in solution over a surface, with subsequent evaporation of solvent) in a laminated construction starting from the substrate ([0019], [0123], [0148], [0216]-[0218]). The (transparent) anode comprises materials such as ITO and silver; the cathode comprises metals such as aluminum, magnesium, and silver ([0127], [0130]). An embodiment is disclosed wherein the hole-transporting layer is 60 nm, while the thickness of the electron-transporting/injecting layer is 30 nm ([0218]). Kim et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises a host (matrix) material in combination with dopant material which are co-deposited and formed into a solid film ([0019], [0098], [0227]); in an embodiment, its inventive compound serves as host material while other (non-Formula I) compound serves dopant material ([0112], [0120]-[0121]). The emission is either fluorescent or phosphorescent ([0021]). However, Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the fluorescent compounds as recited by the Applicant.
Song et al. discloses the following conjugated donor-acceptor (“D-A”) compound for use as fluorescent materials (Abstract, page 1):
PNG
media_image4.png
184
768
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 2) such that (for 20) m”’ = 1, R = electron-withdrawing substituent (Cl), and R’ = electron-donating substituent (CH3O); R =
PNG
media_image5.png
28
38
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(with Hal = Cl) and R’ =
PNG
media_image6.png
22
54
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(with Alkyl = CH3) of the following Applicant’s formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
94
328
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. It would have been obvious to incorporate 20 as disclosed by Song et al. as dopant material into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Song et al. which discloses a viable compound for use as fluorescent (i.e., emitting) material using a synthetic method of >70% yield (Table 1, page 3), thus rendering the incorporation predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6, notice that if the light-emitting layer (9) is formed via vapor deposition, there is a continual application of light-emitting layers (of arbitrary thicknesses) until a light-emitting layer of a desired thickness is reached.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 17 is currently objected to but would be allowable if amended to overcome the minor informalities as set forth above.
The closest prior art is provided by Kim et al. (US 2004/0067387 A1), which discloses a method for forming the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image1.png
501
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 4) comprising substrate (1), anode (3), hole-injecting layer (5), hole-transporting layer (7), light-emitting layer (9), electron-transporting layer (11), electron-injecting layer (13), and cathode (15) ([0105]); the layers (including the light-emitting layer) are formed via “any known film forming techniques,” such as vapor deposition and spin coating (which involves application of material dissolved in solution over a surface, with subsequent evaporation of solvent) in a laminated construction starting from the substrate ([0019], [0123], [0148], [0216]-[0218]). The (transparent) anode comprises materials such as ITO and silver; the cathode comprises metals such as aluminum, magnesium, and silver ([0127], [0130]). An embodiment is disclosed wherein the hole-transporting layer is 60 nm, while the thickness of the electron-transporting/injecting layer is 30 nm ([0218]). Kim et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises a host (matrix) material in combination with dopant material which are co-deposited and formed into a solid film ([0019], [0098], [0227]); in an embodiment, its inventive compound serves as host material while other (non-Formula I) compound serves dopant material ([0112], [0120]-[0121]). The emission is either fluorescent or phosphorescent ([0021]). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Kim et al. singly nor in combination with any other prior art discloses the method as recited in Claim 17, particularly in regards to the nature of the fluorescent compound.
Response to Arguments
13. The Applicant argues that “Lee and Song are silent about fluorescent compounds according to the amended claim 1 and new claim 18.” Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that the fluorescent compounds as disclosed by both Lee et al. and Song et al. still reads on alternative formulae as recited in Claim 1 in the Markush group (see above rejection).
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
15. 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