DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received December 9, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 6, 15-17, and 25 were amended. Claims 1-25 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0155048 A1) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment dated December 9, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2016/0322578 A1; cited on 02/16/2026 I.D.S.).
Hwang et al. teaches compounds according to formula 2 (see abstract) per instant formula 1 of claims 1 and 16:
PNG
media_image1.png
246
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Y1 and Y2 may be O or S (see par. 12) in groups of above Formula 2 per instant Ar1 and Ar2. Hwang Ar2 may be phenyl and L4 may be naphthyl (see par. 13, 15, 118, and 120). More specifically, note that L4 may be naphthalene formula 3-6 having the same bonding position as the instant bonding position of L to naphthalene of instant Formula 4 (see par. 53) of instant claims 1, 2, 16, 17:
PNG
media_image2.png
58
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 18, instant L is not required to be present as “a” may be zero. Additionally and alternatively, each Hwang et al. linking group L4 of Formula 2 may be independently selected, a4 may be 0 to 3, and L4 may be arylene group (see par. 13-14).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, each of above Y1 and Y2 containing rings correspond to instant Ar1 and Ar2 as heteroaryl groups. Per claims 8, 9, 21, and 22, these groups may be dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene when Y1 and Y2 are respectively selected as O or S. Regarding claims 10 and 23, the bonding position to a dibenzothiophene is within the teaching of Hwang et al. Formula 2 as the corresponding group may bond at any of the bonding sites on the dibenzothiophene group. Regarding claims 11 and 24, Z1 of the 3-6 L group (see par. 53) may be hydrogen or deuterium (see par. 56). Regarding claims 15 and 25, L4 may be phenyl (see par. 65) and Ar2 may be naphthyl substituted with phenyl (see par. 85) or alternatively, a L4 is phenyl, a second L4 is independently naphthyl (i.e. group 4-4 of par. 65), and Ar2 is phenyl; note that at least specific instant compounds C52 to C55 and C81 to C85 correspond to Hwang et al. formula 2.
Further regarding device claim 1, the formula 2 is in a hole transport region and the device also includes an emission layer (see abstract) and an electron transport layer between electrodes (see par. 30). Regarding claim 12, a layer containing formula 2 may be adjacent the emitting layer (see par. 148-153). The device includes both a hole transport layer and an auxiliary layer as the hole transport region per the requirement of a plurality of layers (see par. 148, 154). Regarding claim 13, a device may include a hole injecting layer (see par. 155) and the “hole transporting auxiliary layer” is considered to correspond to the recited “electron blocking layer” in the layered device structure. Regarding claim 14, a device may include hole blocking layer, electron transport layer, and electron injecting layer (see par. 233).
While Hwang et al. does not appear to teach an example formula 2 compound where the groups were specifically selected in combination as discussed above, the groups are clearly defined for a formula 2 compound for a hole transport region of a device. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds as taught by the reference as described above wherein the resultant compounds and devices containing them would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds for device structures within the disclosure of Hwang et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-13 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106661445 (cited by applicant on 02/16/2026 I.D.S and translation copy provided with this office communication).
CN’445 teaches compounds according to Formula 3 for a hole transport auxiliary layer (see translation copy page 1 and formula on page 2):
PNG
media_image3.png
204
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula, X1 may be sulfur or oxygen, n4-n6 may be zero, L2, L3 and L4 may be independently arylene or heteroarylene or may not be present if corresponding “n” are zero, Ar2 and Ar3 are aryl or heteroaryl that may be substituted with groups such as aryl, and the R groups may be hydrogen, deuterium, or aryl or heteroaryl (see page 2 of translation under formula 3). Specific aryl and heteroaryl groups are taught to include phenyl, naphthyl, phenanthryl, dibenzothiophene, and dibenzofuranyl (see page 3 of translation and see also page 22). See also specific groups at bottom of page 22 of translation showing substituted naphthyl. The teaching of definitions for each of the groups and variables of Formula 3 meet the requirements of compounds of Formula 1 recited in claims 1, 2, 16 and 17. The general teachings of the aryl and heteroaryl groups are considered to encompass any of the specific bonding locations of groups as recited. Regarding claims 15 and 25, many of the recited specific compounds include at least one dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene corresponding to the X1-containing group of CN ‘445 formula 3 in combination with a Ar2 or Ar3 selected as heteroaryl or aryl with one of –(L3)n5-Ar2 or –(L4)n6-Ar3 as a group of phenyl-naphthyl-phenyl. Per claims 3, 4, 15, 18, and 25, L groups may be independently arylene or heteroarylene or may not be present if corresponding “n” are zero. Regarding claims 5, 6, and 19, note that formula 3 L2 may be an aryl group corresponding to a recited substituted aryl group such as phenyl. Regarding claims 7-9 and 20-23, formula 3 has one heteroaryl group and another may be selected as a Ar2, Ar3, L3 and/or L4. Regarding claims 10 and 23, the specific bonding position is shown in more specific formula 3 structure 3-I (see bottom of page 21 to top of page 22 of translation). Regarding claims 11 and 24, groups may be unsubstituted per a hydrogen.
Regarding the device structure of claims 1 and 12, a device includes a light emitting layer (32), a hole transport layer (31), a hole transport auxiliary layer containing the formula 3, (33) and an electron transport layer (34) between an anode (10) and cathode (20) (see Fig. 1 description from bottom of page 2 to top of page 3 of translation). The hole transport layer and auxiliary layer are a “plurality” per claim 7. Figure 1 (see CN patent document front page):
PNG
media_image4.png
172
342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 13, a device also includes a hole injection layer (see page 41 of translation Example 1 description) and the “auxiliary” layer meets the requirements of recited “electron blocking” layer.
While CN’445 does not appear to teach an example formula 3 compound where the variable groups were selected in combination as discussed above, the groups are clearly defined for a formula 3 compound for a hole transport region of a device. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds of formula 3 as taught by the reference as described above wherein the resultant compounds and devices containing the compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds for device structures within the disclosure of CN’445 with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321I or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of now issued U.S. Patent 11,871,656 (previously co-pending Application No. 16/256,225). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘656 also claims compounds of Formulas 2 to 8 that are within the general formula 1 of the instant claims within a device structure hole transport region of a light emitting device. Ar1 and Ar2 groups of the formulas may encompass the same groups. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to use a compound which is both disclosed by US 11,871,656 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of US patent 11,849,632 (previously co-pending Application No. 16/590,214). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘632 claims Formula 1 compounds for a hole transport region of an organic electroluminescence device structure (see claims 1-4) per instant formula 7 of independent claims 1 and 16:
PNG
media_image5.png
202
421
media_image5.png
Greyscale
‘214 Formula 1
Ar1 and Ar2 may be aryl or heteroaryl and Ar3 can be phenyl (see ‘214 claim 1). Furthermore, US ‘214 recites specific compounds (see at least #33 of claim 20) of formula 1 identical to compounds recited in the present application (see compound F1):
PNG
media_image6.png
170
140
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
140
204
media_image7.png
Greyscale
‘214 Compound 33 Instant “F1” (see instant cl. 15, 25).
US ‘214 claims additional materials present in an emission layer, but the instant device claims do not exclude these materials from being present.
Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by patent US 11,849,632 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/579,921 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘921 also claims a monoamine derivative for a hole transporting layer of a light emitting device that comprises a phenyl-naphthyl-phenyl group and the Ar1 and Ar2 groups encompass aryl or heteroaryl groups. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by copending 17/579,921 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 7-18, and 20-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/523,729 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘729 also claims a monoamine derivative for a hole transporting layer of a light emitting device that comprises a phenyl-naphthyl-phenyl group and the Ar1 and Ar2 groups encompass aryl or heteroaryl groups. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by copending 18/523,729 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
No specific arguments were set forth for the obviousness double patenting rejections. The rejections are respectfully maintained.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer 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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights