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 .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 9/4/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 9/4/2026. In particular, original Claim 12 has been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 2020/0190115, cited on IDS filed on 10/18/2021, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘115).
Regarding claim 12, Hatakeyama ‘115 discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
353
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 corresponds to the recited first electrode; layer 108 corresponds to the recited second electrode; layers 103 to 107 correspond to the recited organic layer; layer 105 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer; and layer 103, i.e. the hole transport layer, corresponds to the recited hole transport region disposed on the first electrode (102) ([0144]). The positive electrode (102) and negative electrode (108) are formed from a metal such as aluminum (Al) ([0152] and [0431]).
The light emitting layer (105) comprises the following compound ([0058] and Page 7 – Compound (1-5000R100):
PNG
media_image2.png
360
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where independently each R100 can be an aryloxy or a diarylamino group, where the aryl has 6 to 10 carbon atoms and may be substituted by an alkyl having 1 to 6 carbon atoms ([0055]). The aryl of the aryloxy is a benzene ring and is found exemplified in Compound ([0112], [0100] and Page 17 Compound 1-1-01A):
PNG
media_image3.png
284
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 66 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
158
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic light emitting device nor can the claimed organic light emitting device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic light emitting device and the organic light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound an organic light emitting device which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 3, 4, and 13 are allowable over the “closest” prior art Hatakeyama et al (US 2020/0190115, cited on IDS filed on 10/18/2021, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘115) for the following reasons.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Hatakeyama ‘115 discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
329
583
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Paragraph [0041] discloses that the diarylamino groups can be substituted by a C1-12 alkyl. However, the reference does not disclose or suggest the criticality of a methyl group in an ortho position to the central nitrogen of a biphenylamino group as required by Formulas 2-1:
PNG
media_image6.png
106
222
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where Z1 and Z2 are methyl groups and R9 and R10 are hydrogen, especially in light of the data presented in the instant Specification. Specifically, Table 1 of the instant Specification demonstrates the criticality of the position of the methyl group, where Compound 1 (see Example 1, Pages 98 of the as-filed Specification), within the scope of the claims 1 and 13, i.e.:
PNG
media_image7.png
222
414
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
has improved efficiency and device life ratio (T95) as compared to a compound where the methyl group are para to the nitrogen of the diphenyl amine group, e.g. Comparative Example 2, utilizing Compound C2:
PNG
media_image8.png
282
528
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Given that Hatakeyama ‘115 does not disclose or suggest the criticality of the methyl group in terms of improved efficiency and device life ratio (T95), it is clear that the reference does not disclose or suggest the compound or an organic light emitting device comprising the compound as recited in the present claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims and Specification, the objections to the Specification and claims as set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Hatakeyama et al does not disclose the subject matter recited in claim 12 as amended. However, as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
360
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where independently each R100 can be an aryloxy or a diarylamino group, where the aryl is an aryl having 6 to 10 carbon atoms and may be substituted by an alkyl having 1 to 6 carbon atoms ([0055]). The aryl of the aryloxy is a benzene ring. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 66 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
158
286
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights