DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group (I)(A)(i) in the reply filed on 04/12/2024 was previously acknowledged.
Group (I)(A)(i) corresponds to a compound represented by Formula 10, a11 and a12 are both 0, and none of Ar1 to Ar4 includes an amine group.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 encompass the elected species.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 01/23/2026 is entered.
Claims 1, 9, 13, and 20 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabunouchi et al. US-20070296331-A1 in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 and the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabunouchi et al. US-20070296331-A1 in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Jang et al. US-20100289008-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejections are withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of Yokoyama et al. US-20150380657-A1, cited on the IDS of 05/21/2021.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicants' arguments on pages 29-31 of the reply dated 01/23/2026 with respect to the rejections of record have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 30 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
Examiner's response – The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of the narrower definition of Ar1 to Ar4 that no longer includes "a naphthyl group" and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of the teachings of Yokoyama et al. US-20150380657-A1, cited on the IDS of 05/21/2021.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 30 that because claims 2-8, 10, 11 and 13-20 depend from claim 1 or 9, they each incorporate all of the terms and features of their base claim, in addition to other features, which together further patentably distinguish these claims over the art of record when considered as a whole.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to the rejections of these dependent claims and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. US-20150380657-A1 (hereinafter "Yokoyama") in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 (hereinafter "Li").
It is noted that Yokoyama et al. US-20150380657-A1 is cited on the IDS of 05/21/2021.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-20, Yokoyama teaches an organic EL device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer, a second hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer and a cathode in this order, wherein the second hole transport layer includes an arylamine compound represented by a general formula (1) (¶ [0034]). Yokoyama teaches wherein the light emitting layer may be made of a host material and a dopant material (¶ [0162]), wherein the light-emitting dopant may be a fluorescent material of aminostyryl derivatives (¶ [0162]), or a phosphorescent light-emitting material (¶ [0163]), and wherein the electron injection layer may comprise an alkali metal (¶ [0169]). Yokoyama teaches the organic EL device as the beneficial properties of high efficiency, low driving voltage and a long lifetime (¶ [0123]). Yokoyama teaches specific examples of the compound represented by general formula (1) including compound (1-3)
PNG
media_image1.png
226
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 13).
Yokoyama does not teach a compound that meets the claimed Formula 1. For example, the compounds of Yokoyama do not show wherein at least one of the central phenylene groups is fully deuterated (substituted with four deuteriums).
Li teaches that a deuterated organic system has better thermal stability, and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices (¶ [0009]) and deuterated organic semiconductor materials exhibit improved performance including brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime compared to non-deuterated organic semiconductor materials (Abstract, ¶ [0023], and [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compounds of Yokoyama including compound (1-3) in the device of Yokoyama to include at least one deuterium, based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime, as taught by Li.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fully deuterated at least one of the central phenylene groups, because each position would have been a choice from two options, H or D, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the hole transport region of the device of Yokoyama and possessing the beneficial properties taught by Yokoyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by the general formula of Yokoyama and being partially or fully deuterated based on the teachings of Li having the benefits as described above taught by Li in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The modified compound of Yokoyama is a compound of the claimed Formula 1. For example, the modified compound (1-3) of Yokoyama is a compound of the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
L1 to L4, L11, and L12 are not required to be present;
a1 to a4, a11, and a12 are each 0;
Ar1 is a phenyl group, A-r2 is a phenanthryl group, Ar3 is a phenyl group, and Ar4 is a phenanthryl group each of which is either partially, full, or not deuterated;
R1 to R3 are not required to be present;
b1 to b3 are each 0; and
c1 to c3 are each 0 to 4, wherein at least one of c1 to c3 is 4.
One of the modified compounds of Yokoyama corresponds to one of the claimed compounds recited in claim 20. For example, one of the modified compounds (1-3) of Yokoyama correspond to the claimed compound 189
PNG
media_image2.png
208
221
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. US-20150380657-A1 (hereinafter "Yokoyama") in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 (hereinafter "Li") as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Jang et al. US-20100289008-A1 ("Jang").
Regarding claim 5, Yokoyama in view of Li discloses the device comprising the modified compound as described above with respect to claim 4.
Yokoyama in view of Li does not teach wherein the hole transport region further comprises a p-dopant having a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of less than about -3.5 eV.
Jang teaches an organic light emitting device having high efficiency can be obtained by forming a hole injecting and/or transporting layer of an organic light emitting device doping a material with a LUMO energy level of -4 eV or less in a material with a HOMO energy level of -4 eV or less (¶ [0009],¶ [0011]). Jang teaches specific examples of the material with a LUMO energy level of -4 eV or less include 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8- tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4TCNQ) and hexaazatriphenylene-hexacarbonitrile (¶ [0036]), which comprise a cyano group, and specific examples of the material with a HOMO energy level of -4 eV or less include NPB (¶ [0033)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yokoyama in view of Li by forming the hole transport layer comprising a material with a HOMO energy level of -4 eV or less and a material with a LUMO energy level of -4 eV or less, based on the teaching of Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high efficiency, as taught by Jang.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is (571)272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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 Boyd can be reached on 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786