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 .
Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-20 are pending as amended on 2/17/2026. Claims 2, 6-10, 14, 18 and 20 stand withdrawn from consideration.
The claims have been amended to exclude the species of compounds which were examined in the previous action mailed on 12/10/2025. The compound BA4 is no longer recited in claim 19 (overcoming the rejections over Ha). Additionally, the claims have been amended to require Ar2 to be a heteroaryl having 14 to 30 ring-forming atoms when (1) the amine compound has a structure according to formula 4 and (2) Ar1 is represented by formula 3-1 (overcoming the rejections over Yamaki, because Yamaki’s corresponding Ar group has 5 to 12 ring forming atoms).
The examiner notes that claims 13 and 19 no longer recite any compounds which have a structure wherein instant Ar1 is represented by formula 3-1.
Examination has been continued for species which remain encompassed by the instant claims as set forth in the new rejections below. The new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, and therefore, this action is properly made final. Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “atoms” is missing, and should be inserted prior to “and no ring-forming atom is O or S...” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 has been amended to recite “wherein the amine compound represented by Formula 4 or Formula 5…” Given that all of the compounds recited in claim 19 have structure according to formula 4, “or Formula 5” should be deleted. (Note that compounds having structures according to formula 5 are recited in withdrawn claim 20.)
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 15 and 17 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.
In the claims as filed on 10/2/2025, the following text forms part of claim 15:
PNG
media_image1.png
260
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the presently amended claims filed on 2/17/2026, the above range “16 to 17” has been changed back to “16 to 30:”
PNG
media_image2.png
424
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claims have not been annotated (with underlining and strike through) to indicate that changes have been made. It is therefore unclear whether the reversal to 16 to 30 was intended, rendering the scope of claims 15 and 17 unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 depends from claim 1. There are compounds recited in claim 13 which do not fall within the scope of independent claim 1, and therefore, claim 13 fails to properly further limit claim 1:
compounds BA1, BB1 and BC1 do not satisfy the proviso which must be met when Ar1 is 3-2 and R11, R12 and L1 are all unsubstituted phenylene (in each compound, the group corresponding to Ar2 is phenyl, which is not permitted).
compound BA26 does not satisfy the proviso which must be met when Ar1 is 3-2 and R11, R12 and L1 are all unsubstituted phenylene (the group corresponding to Ar2 is unsubstituted biphenyl, which is not permitted).
Claim 19 depends from claim 15. There are compounds recited in claim 19 which do not fall within the scope of independent claim 15, and therefore, claim 19 fails to properly further limit claim 15:
compounds BA1, BB1 and BC1 do not satisfy the proviso which must be met when Ar1 is 3-2 and R11, R12 and L1 are all unsubstituted phenylene (in each compound, the group corresponding to Ar2 is phenyl, which is not permitted).
compounds BA26 and BC3 do not satisfy the proviso which must be met when Ar1 is 3-2 and R11, R12 and L1 are all unsubstituted phenylene (in each compound, the group corresponding to Ar2 is biphenyl substituted with deuterium or unsubstituted biphenyl, which are not permitted).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ham et al (CN 111995532 A).
Ham discloses a compound having a structure according to formula 2 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
159
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein l, m and n are each 0-4, and wherein l+m+n is 1 or greater (translation [0072-73]). A, B and C can be selected from a group which includes phenanthrenyl and naphthyl [0092]. Ham exemplifies several compounds, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
234
277
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 190 has a structure encompassed by instant claim 15 wherein the amine compound has a structure according to instant formula 4 (and encompassed by instant claim 17 when the compound is represented by formula 6-3), wherein L1 is unsubstituted phenylene and n is 1, wherein Ar1 is represented by formula 3-3, wherein y is zero, and wherein Ar2 is a substituted aryl group having 6-30 carbon atoms (e.g., a terphenyl group substituted with naphthyl).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham et al (CN 111995532 A; machine translation included with this action).
Ham discloses a compound having a structure according to formula 2 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
159
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein l, m and n are each 0-4, and wherein l+m+n is 1 or greater (translation [0072-73]). A, B and C can be selected from a group which includes phenanthrenyl and naphthyl [0092]. Ham exemplifies several compounds, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
234
277
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 190 has a structure according to Ham’s formula 2 wherein A is phenanthrenyl and l is 1, C is naphthyl and n is zero, and wherein B is naphthyl and m is three.
The following compound is recited in instant claim 19:
PNG
media_image5.png
128
150
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Arriving at instant compound AG7 requires changing the value of “m” in Ham’s compound 190 from three to two. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ham’s compound 190 by changing “m” from 3 to any other value within Ham’s disclosed “m” range of 0 to 4, including 2, thereby arriving at a compound having the same structure as instant AG7. Case law has established that a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al (KR 20180051356; included machine translation cited herein).
As to claims 1, 3 and 5, Cha discloses a luminescence device having the following structure:
PNG
media_image6.png
234
144
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see fig 1) comprising an anode 2 (corresponding to instant first electrode), hole injection and hole transport layers 5 and 6 and an electron blocking layer (corresponding to instant hole transport region), a light emitting layer 7 (corresponding to instant emission layer), an electron injection and/or transport layer 8 (corresponding to instant electron transport region) and cathode 4 (corresponding to instant second electrode). See translation p 93/103 and p 100/103. Cha teaches that the electron blocking layer contains a compound represented by a formula 2 in order to lower the driving voltage and improve emitting efficiency and lifetime (p 94/103).
Cha discloses several examples of compounds according to formula 2, including:
PNG
media_image7.png
167
205
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(see p 41/103)
The above compound has a structure according to instant formula 4 wherein the R groups in formula 4 are all hydrogen, L1 is unsubstituted phenylene, n is 1, Ar1 has a structure according to formula 3-3, Ar2 is a biphenyl group (unsubstituted aryl having 12 ring forming carbon atoms), the R groups in formula 3-3 are hydrogen, L3 is unsubstituted phenylene and y is 1. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed an electron blocking layer of a device, as taught by Cha, utilizing any of the compounds according to Cha’s formula 2 (including the compound copied above) in order to improve the emitting efficiency and lifetime, thereby arriving at the presently claimed subject matter.
As to claim 11, Cha discloses that the compound according to formula 2 can be used as a hole transporting layer because of its high mobility to holes (p 94/103). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have included Cha’s compound of formula 2 in a hole transport layer in order to provide a layer with high mobility to holes for transporting holes to the emission layer. A substantial number of the compounds of formula 2 disclosed by Cha have structures encompassed by instant formula H-1. See, e.g.,
PNG
media_image8.png
119
174
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, which is the first structure on p 41/103, and which has a structure according to instant H-1 wherein La1 and La2 are phenyl, a-1 and b-1 are 1, and wherein Ara2 is C14 aryl, Ara1 is phenyl and Ara3 is biphenyl.
As to claim 12, Cha discloses (example 1, p 95/103) a light emitting layer comprising the following compound BH
PNG
media_image9.png
198
122
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, which has a structure encompassed by instant formula E-1.
As to claim 13, instant compound AA5 (copied below) differs from Cha’s compound copied above because AA5 has a terphenyl group where Cha’s compound has a biphenyl group.
PNG
media_image10.png
195
164
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The phenylnaphthalene and biphenyl groups in Cha’s compound:
PNG
media_image7.png
167
205
media_image7.png
Greyscale
correspond to groups Ar3 and Ar4 in Cha’s generic formula 2:
PNG
media_image11.png
107
344
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Among suitable groups for Ar3 and Ar4, Cha names terphenyl along with biphenyl and phenylnaphthalene (translation p 40/103). It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cha’s compound copied above by substituting the biphenyl group for any other suitable Ar3/Ar4 group named by Cha, including terphenyl, in order to provide another compound capable of improving the emitting efficiency and lifetime of a device. Case law has established that it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). MPEP 2143, rationale (B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument (pp 106-107) that the rejections over Ha have been overcome by amendment is persuasive.
Applicant’s argument (pp 108-110) that the rejections over Yamaki have been overcome by amendment is persuasive.
However, the claims are not in condition for allowance in view of the new rejections set forth above.
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 RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766