DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/14/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1 and 6-12 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 Final Rejection filed 07/14/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 07/14/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 07/14/25 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1) in view of Deaton et al. (US 2005/0123791 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 07/14/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1) in view of Deaton et al. (US 2005/0123791 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 07/14/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 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.
11. Claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1).
Kim et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic electric element) for the construction of displays ([0270]):
PNG
media_image1.png
384
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2) comprising anode (110), p-type charge-generating layer (312) (first layer), light-emitting unit (220) (comprising a light-emitting layer), n-type charge-generating layer (321), p-type charge-generating layer (322), light-emitting unit (210) (comprising light-emitting layer), and cathode (120); 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 ([0029]). Kim et al. discloses Formula 1 includes the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
186
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([119]) where R1, R3 = substituted or unsubstituted aryl group (among others) ([0035]); substituents include halogens such as fluorine and nitrile (CN) ([0074], [0076], [0136]) as exemplified in the following embodiments:
PNG
media_image3.png
137
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 21)
PNG
media_image4.png
126
298
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 32). However, Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the specific first compounds as recited by the Applicant. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the above compound as disclosed by Kim et al. (as shown on page 32) such that it corresponds to A24 as recited in Claim 1. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the exchange of fluorine substituent groups for functional (and electron-withdrawing) equivalents (CN) selected from a highly finite list as taught by Kim et al. and easily envisioned from the scope of its general formula (as well as from its other inventive embodiments, see above), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Kim et al. further discloses the following embodiment for one of Formulae 2-4:
PNG
media_image5.png
184
204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 84) (second compound) such that m = n = 0, L1-2 = C6 arylene group (phenylene), and R2-3 = C12 or C18 aryl group (biphenyl or terphenyl) of Applicant’s chemical formula 8.
12. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1) as applied above and in further view of Deaton et al. (US 2005/0123791 A1).
Kim et al. discloses the organic electric electroluminescent (EL) device (electric element) of Claim 1 as shown above. Kim et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises a host material and dopant material; host materials include condensed aromatic ring derivatives such as anthracene derivatives ([0263]). However, Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose the use of a third compound as recited by the Applicant.
Deaton et al. discloses hosts materials for fluorescent light-emitting materials; “[e]specially desirable hosts” include 9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene (ADN) ([0058], [0063]). It would have been obvious to incorporate ADN (third compound) as disclosed by Deaton et al. to the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kim et al. (as host material). The motivation is provided by Deaton et al., which teaches such compounds as desirable hosts for emitters in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device.
It is also the position of the Office that the use of such compounds as disclosed by Kim et al. in view of Deaton et al. would inherently read on the energy limitations as recited by the Applicant; evidence is provided by the fact that the compound produced from the disclosure of Kim et al. is identical to the Applicant’s preferred embodiment for the first compound (see Claim 1), while ADN as disclosed by Deaton et al. is identical to the Applicant’s preferred third compound embodiment (see [0224]; Table 1 of the present national phase publication).
13. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1) as applied above and in further view of Kawakami et al. (US 2011/0147728 A1).
Kim et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic electric element) of Claim 1 as shown above. Kim et al. discloses that the device as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
384
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2) comprises anode (110), p-type charge-generating layer (312), light-emitting unit (220) (comprising a light-emitting layer), n-type charge-generating layer (321), p-type charge-generating layer (322), light-emitting unit (210) (comprising light-emitting layer), and cathode (120); Kim et al. discloses that the p-type charge-generating layer comprises a compound of Formula 1 ([0029]). Kim et al. further discloses that the light-emitting units comprises one or more organic layers in addition to the light-emitting layers such as a hole-transporting layer which lie closer to the anode ([0025]). Notice that the “first layer” as recited in Claim 1 can be defined to be the layer comprising the p-type charge-generating layer and an adjacent hole-transporting layer. However, Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the second compounds as recited in Claim 6.
Kawakami et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
290
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 6) (second compound) (corresponds to 5-16 as recited in Claim 6) as “novel material having sufficient hole transporting property” and high glass temperature which is used as material comprising the hole-transporting layer of an organic EL device ([0039]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound (27) as disclosed by Kawakami et al. (above) into the hole-transporting layers of the light-emitting units of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kawakami et al., which discloses its inventive spirofluorene derivatives having sufficient hole-transporting properties with high glass transition temperature in an identical field of invention.
It is also the position of the Office that the use of such compounds would inherently read on the energy limitations as recited in Claim 8; evidence is provided by the fact that the compounds as disclosed by Kim et al. are identical to the Applicant’s preferred embodiments for the first and second compounds (for example, see Claims 1 and 6).
14. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/221871 A1) as applied above and in further view of Kawakami et al. (US 2011/0147728 A1) and Deaton et al. (US 2005/0123791 A1).
Kim et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic electric element) of Claim 1 as shown above. Kim et al. discloses that the device as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
384
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2) comprises anode (110), p-type charge-generating layer (312), light-emitting unit (220) (comprising a light-emitting layer), n-type charge-generating layer (321), p-type charge-generating layer (322), light-emitting unit (210) (comprising light-emitting layer), and cathode (120); Kim et al. discloses that the p-type charge-generating layer comprises a compound of Formula 1 ([0029]). Kim et al. further discloses that the light-emitting units comprises one or more organic layers in addition to the light-emitting layers such as a hole-transporting layer which lie closer to the anode ([0025]).
Kim et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises a host material and dopant material; host materials include condensed aromatic ring derivatives such as anthracene derivatives ([0263]). Notice that the “first layer” as recited in Claim 1 can be defined to be the layer comprising the p-type charge-generating layer and an adjacent hole-transporting layer. However, Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose an organic layer satisfying Applicant’s general formula 3.
Kawakami et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
290
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 6) (second compound) (corresponds to 5-16 as recited in Claim 6) as “novel material having sufficient hole transporting property” and high glass temperature which is used as material comprising the hole-transporting layer of an organic EL device ([0039]). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound (27) as disclosed by Kawakami et al. (above) into the hole-transporting layers of the light-emitting units of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kawakami et al., which discloses its inventive spirofluorene derivatives having sufficient hole-transporting properties with high glass transition temperature in an identical field of invention. However, Kim et al. in view of Kawakami et al. does not explicitly disclose an organic layer satisfying Applicant’s general formula 3.
Deaton et al. discloses hosts materials for fluorescent light-emitting materials; “[e]specially desirable hosts” include 9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene (ADN) ([0058], [0063]). It would have been obvious to incorporate ADN (third compound) as disclosed by Deaton et al. to the light-emitting layer(s) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kim et al. in view of Kawakami et al. (as host material). The motivation is provided by Deaton et al., which teaches such compounds as desirable hosts for emitters in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device.
It is also the position of the Office that the use of such compounds as disclosed by Kim et al. in view of Kawakami et al. and Deaton et al. would inherently read on the energy limitations as recited by the Applicant; evidence is provided by the fact that the first and second compounds produced from the disclosure of Kim et al. in view of Kawakami et al. are identical to the Applicant’s preferred embodiments for the first and second compounds (see Claims 1 and 6), while ADN as disclosed by Deaton et al. is identical to the Applicant’s preferred third compound embodiment (see [0224]; Table 1 of the present national phase publication).
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-16 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
16. 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