DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 22, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment dated August 22, 2025 is entered. Claims 1 and 10 were amended. Claims 2-7, 9, and 16-20 are canceled claims. Claim 21 was added. Claims 1, 8, 10-15 and 21 are pending.
The rejection of claim 10 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment received August 22, 2025. Note that now amended claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in this office action as specifically set forth below.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1)(where patent family equivalent document US 2020/0144552 is used as the English language translation in the below citations) in view of Kambe et al. (US 2015/0303380 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment received August 22, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 does not appear to have a period at the end of the claim, which should be added for proper claim format. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 and 10 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 21 recites “the hole injection layer comprises a fourth compound represented by one or more of the chemical formula 5 and chemical formula 6”. Claim 1, upon which claim 21 depends, does not recite “chemical formula 5” or “chemical formula 6”. Accordingly, the fourth compound required by a device of claim 21 is indefinite and not understood. Claim 10 is included in the rejection as claim 10 depends upon claim 21.
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, 8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1)(where patent family equivalent document US 2020/0144552 is used as the English language translation in the below citations) in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
Regarding organic electric elements of claims 1, 8, and 10-15, Kim et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) element for the construction of displays (see US ‘522 Figure 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
469
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3) comprises an anode (110), hole-injecting layer (312), light-emitting unit (220) (first stack comprising light-emitting layer), charge-generating layer (320) comprising n-type charge-generating layer (321) (second layer) and p-type charge-generating layer (322) (first layer), light-emitting unit (210) (second stack comprising light-emitting layer), and cathode (120) (see US ‘552 par. 10-18); Kim et al. discloses that the p-type charge-generating layer comprises a compound of Formula 1 and at least one compound of one of Formulae 2-4 (see US ‘552 par. 26). The reference teaches a hole-injecting layer (312), which is a p-type charge generation layer (see US ‘522 Figure 3 reproduced above).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. a formula 1 compound is according to Formula 1-1 or 1-2 (see par. 100) (see US ‘552 par. 100):
PNG
media_image2.png
286
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Q1 and Q2 may be selected as hydrogen or halogen (i.e., fluorine) (see US ‘552 par. 113), R1 and R3 may be phenyl group substituted with one or more selected from halogen (i.e. fluorine), nitrile group (-CN), haloalkyl (i.e., -CF3), or haloalkoxy (i.e., -OCF3) (see US ‘552 par. 110), X1 to X4 may be nitrile (see US ‘552 par. 29), and R2 and R4 may be nitrile (-CN) (see par. 110). The defined substitutions taught for Formula 1-1 and 1-2 compounds encompass recited instant “first compound” derivatives of instant claim 1. Further note that Kim et al. specifically teaches at least the following example compound on page 12, which is a positional isomer (see MPEP 2144.09) instant A20 compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
108
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
While no example Formula 1-1 or 1-2 is shown the same as specific compounds recited for instant “first compound” in claim 1, given the teachings of the reference defining groups upon Formula 1-1 or Formula 1-2, 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 material of the reference, choosing as the compound, that as described above, wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
With respect to instant “second compound” of instant claim 1, Kim et al. teaches at least the following formula 4:
PNG
media_image4.png
166
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Ar1 is substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl, Ar2 is substituted or unsubstituted aryl, R12 and R13 may be aryl (see claim 2, page 145 and par. 61, 81, 84, 88). When Ar2 is selected as aryl phenyl, Ar1 is substituted heteroaryl carbazole substituted with phenyl, and R12 and R13 are aryl phenyl, a formula 4 is the same as instant compound “5-18” of instant claim 1.
With respect to instant “second layer” “third compound” of instant claim 1, Kim et al. discloses that the n-type charge-generating layer comprises compounds capable of transporting electrons (see US ‘552 par. 19), but Kim et al. does not specifically show a third compound the same as an instant compound as recited in independent claim 1. In analogous art, Shin et al. discloses an organic EL element comprising phenanthroline compounds with electron transport function (see par. 49) and may specifically include at least the following compound “EN-006”, which is the same as instant compound “E10” of instant claim 1 (see par. 51 at top of page 5):
PNG
media_image5.png
178
310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electron-transporting compound including at least specific above compound EN-006 as disclosed by Shin et al. to the n-type charge-generating layer of the organic EL element as disclosed by Kim et al. One would expect the compound to provide the function of electron transportation for the layer of a Kim et al. device structure with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
The office submits that property limitations as recited in instant claims 11-13 would naturally flow from the use of compounds as described above (corresponding to the instant first, second, and third compounds) by the fact that the compounds are identical to instant preferred compound embodiments. The Patent and Trademark Office can require Applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes. The burden of proof is on Applicants where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and the Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
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 the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
\ With respect to the “second compound”, the office maintains compounds the same as claimed are rendered obvious by Kim. A reference’s teachings are not limited to only examples. Additionally, the office maintains Kim teaches positional isomer(s) of the recited “first compound” and no specific experimental data was discussed to establish unexpected improved results with respect to the specific compounds claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Senkovskyy et al. (WO 202/120791 A1) discusses phenanthroline compounds (p. 15-20) for OLEDs that are considered relevant to the field of the endeavor.
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