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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/11/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2016/0111644).
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing the first electrode ([0047] and Figure), and further comprises an organic layer disposed between the electrodes ([0052]).
The organic layer comprises the following compound ([0009] and Page 31):
PNG
media_image1.png
342
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
234
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 to R8 are hydrogen;
R5 to R8 are hydrogen; and
L1 to L3, are hydrogen and
L6, to L8 are hydrogen.
L5 corresponds to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar3 and Ar4 are unsubstituted C12 aryl groups.
In the above compound, L4 does not correspond to Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 2A ([0128]):
PNG
media_image5.png
338
398
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where amine the substituent is exemplified as (Page 46):
PNG
media_image6.png
350
336
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
Ar1 is a C6 aryl;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl;
R9 and R10 are hydrogen; and
n1 and n2 are the integers 3 and 4, respectively.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound 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 which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic layer comprises a hole transport region disposed between the first electrode and the light emitting layer ([0053]), where the hole transport region comprises the disclosed compound ([0054]). The organic layer further comprises an electron transport region disposed between the emission layer and the second electrode ([0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer on the first electrode ([0140]); and a hole transport layer formed on the hole injection layer ([0143]). Given that the reference discloses that the hole transport region comprises the disclosed compound, it is clear that the hole transport layer can comprise the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 4, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer on the first electrode ([0140]); a hole transport layer formed on the hole injection layer ([0143]); and an electron blocking layer ([0197]). Given that the reference discloses that the hole transport region comprises the disclosed compound, it is clear that the electron blocking layer can comprise the disclosed compound. Finally, given the reference discloses that the electron blocking layer prevents or reduces the injection of electrons from the electron transport layer, it is clear that the electron blocking layer is between the light emitting layer and the hole transport layer, i.e. the electron blocking layer is on the hole transport layer as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 5, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the compound disclosed by the reference possesses two (2) amine groups, the compound is a diamine compound as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 6, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to Formula 4-4 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
332
300
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 7, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to Formula 5-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
252
196
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 8, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 to R10 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 9, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted phenyl groups; and Ar3 and Ar4 are unsubstituted naphthyl groups.
Regarding claim 10, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image9.png
184
226
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where R11 is hydrogen and the integer n is five (5).
Regarding claim 11, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted phenyl groups, corresponding to recited Formula 6-1:
PNG
media_image10.png
122
92
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra1 is hydrogen; and the integer m1 is five (5).
Furthermore, from the discussion above, Ar3 and Ar4 correspond to Formula 6-5:
PNG
media_image11.png
74
180
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra3 is hydrogen and m3 is seven (7).
Regarding claim 12, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference does not correspond to Compound 80:
PNG
media_image12.png
224
402
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
However, the reference discloses that in the general formula ([0054] – Formula 2 ):
PNG
media_image13.png
152
216
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
R21 and R22 can be phenyl or naphthyl. Accordingly, one naphthyl group can be replaced with a phenyl group to arrive at Compound 80 of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, Cho et al discloses the following compound ([0009] and Page 31):
PNG
media_image1.png
342
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
234
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 to R8 are hydrogen;
R5 to R8 are hydrogen; and
L1 to L3, are hydrogen and
L6, to L8 are hydrogen.
L5 corresponds to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar3 and Ar4 are unsubstituted C12 aryl groups.
In the above compound, L4 does not correspond to Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 2A ([0128]):
PNG
media_image5.png
338
398
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where amine the substituent is exemplified as (Page 46):
PNG
media_image6.png
350
336
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
Ar1 is a C6 aryl;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl;
R9 and R10 are hydrogen; and
n1 and n2 are the integers 3 and 4, respectively.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound 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 which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the compound disclosed by the reference possesses two (2) amine groups, the compound is a diamine compound as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 15, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to Formula 4-4 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
332
300
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 16, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to Formula 5-1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
252
196
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 17, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted phenyl groups; and Ar3 and Ar4 are unsubstituted naphthyl groups.
Regarding claim 18, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image9.png
184
226
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where R11 is hydrogen and the integer n is five (5).
Regarding claim 19, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted phenyl groups, corresponding to recited Formula 6-1:
PNG
media_image10.png
122
92
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra1 is hydrogen; and the integer m1 is five (5).
Furthermore, from the discussion above, Ar3 and Ar4 correspond to Formula 6-5:
PNG
media_image11.png
74
180
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra3 is hydrogen and m3 is seven (7).
Regarding claim 20, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference does not correspond to Compound 80:
PNG
media_image12.png
224
402
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
However, the reference discloses that in the general formula ([0054] – Formula 2 ):
PNG
media_image13.png
152
216
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
that R21 and R22 can be phenyl or naphthyl. Accordingly, one naphthyl group can be replaced with a phenyl group to arrive at Compound 80 of the present claims.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2016/0181524).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al discloses the following organic light emitting device (Abstract and [0040] - Figure):
PNG
media_image14.png
228
484
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises a first electrode ([0040] – 110); a second electrode ([0040] – 190); and an organic layer ([0040] – layers 130, 150, and 170) disposed between the first (110) and second electrodes (190).
The hole transport region (130) comprises a hole auxiliary layer ([0015]), where the hole auxiliary layer comprises the following compound ([0016], [0185], and Page 35 – Compound A4):
PNG
media_image15.png
406
573
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
234
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 to R8 are hydrogen;
R5 to R8 are hydrogen; and
L1, L2, L4, L5, L6, and L8 are hydrogen.
L7 corresponds to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar3 and Ar4 are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
L3 corresponds to:
PNG
media_image16.png
208
218
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, this substituent does not correspond to Formula 2 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 1A ([0046] and Page 4):
PNG
media_image17.png
216
416
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar6 can be ([0092] and Page 12 – Formula 5-14):
PNG
media_image18.png
124
230
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.
In Formula (5-14 ),Y31 can be N(Z35), where Z35 is a phenyl group ([0095]); Z31 and Z32 can be hydrogen ([0091]); and e3 and e4 are integers [1-3] and [1-4], respectively ([0098] and [0099]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Ar1 and Ar2 are phenyl groups, i.e. an unsubstituted C6 aryls;
R9 and R10 are hydrogen; and
n1 and n2 are the integers 3 and 4, respectively.
Furthermore, from the bonding of the substituents in Formula 1A, it is clear that the reference discloses all possible bonding arrangements such as those which are not explicitly prohibited by the exclusions 1 to 4 recited in the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound 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 which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image14.png
228
484
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
where the hole transport region (130) is disposed on the first electrode (110); the emission layer (150) is disposed on the hole transport region (130); the electron transport region (170) is disposed on of the emission layer (150); and where the hole transport region (130) comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the hole transport region has the following structure from the anode ([0262]-[0264]):
hole injection layer (HIL) / hole transport layer (HTL) / hole auxiliary layer,
where hole auxiliary layer, i.e. a hole transport layer, comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the compound disclosed by the reference possesses two (2) amine groups, the compound is a diamine compound as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formula 4-3 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image19.png
300
382
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formula 5-3 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image20.png
214
290
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 to R10 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 to Ar4 are unsubstituted phenyl groups.
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image9.png
184
226
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where R11 is hydrogen and the integer n is five (5).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 to Ar4 are unsubstituted phenyl groups, corresponding to recited Formula 6-1:
PNG
media_image10.png
122
92
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra1 is hydrogen; and the integer m1 is five (5).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image21.png
406
573
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
does not correspond to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image22.png
162
224
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
due to the positions of the amine groups in the disclosed compound relative to Compound 1 of the claims. However, the reference discloses the following formula ([0046] - Formula 1A and Page 4):
PNG
media_image17.png
216
416
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where the bonding of L1 and L3 encompass that found in Compound 1 of the present claims. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 1 of the present claims.
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al discloses the following compound ([0016], [0185], and Page 35 – Compound A4):
PNG
media_image15.png
406
573
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
234
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 to R8 are hydrogen;
R5 to R8 are hydrogen; and
L1, L2, L4, L5, L6, and L8 are hydrogen.
L7 corresponds to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
132
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar3 and Ar4 are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
L3 corresponds to:
PNG
media_image16.png
208
218
media_image16.png
Greyscale
,
and therefore, this substituent does not correspond to Formula 2 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula 1A ([0046] and Page 4):
PNG
media_image17.png
216
416
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar6 can be ([0092] and Page 12 – Formula 5-14):
PNG
media_image18.png
124
230
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.
In Formula (5-14 ),Y31 can be N(Z35), where Z35 is a phenyl group ([0095]); Z31 and Z32 can be hydrogen ([0091]); and e3 and e4 are integers [1-3] and [1-4], respectively ([0098] and [0099]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where in Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image4.png
182
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Ar1 and Ar2 are phenyl groups, i.e. an unsubstituted C6 aryls;
R9 and R10 are hydrogen; and
n1 and n2 are the integers 3 and 4, respectively.
Furthermore, from the bonding of the substituents in Formula 1A, it is clear that the reference discloses all possible bonding arrangements such as those which are not explicitly prohibited by the exclusions 1 to 4 recited in the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound 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 which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the compound disclosed by the reference possesses two (2) amine groups, the compound is a diamine compound as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formula 4-3 of the present claims:
PNG
media_image19.png
300
382
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound encompassed by Formula 5-3:
PNG
media_image20.png
214
290
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 to Ar4 are unsubstituted phenyl groups.
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-1:
PNG
media_image9.png
184
226
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where R11 is hydrogen; and the integer n is five (5).
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 to Ar4 are unsubstituted phenyl groups, corresponding to recited Formula 6-1:
PNG
media_image10.png
122
92
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra1 is hydrogen; and the integer m1 is five (5).
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The compound disclosed by the reference:
PNG
media_image21.png
406
573
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
does not correspond to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image22.png
162
224
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
due to the positions of the amine groups in the disclosed compound relative to Compound 1 of the claims. However, the reference discloses the following formula ([0046] - Formula 1A and Page 4):
PNG
media_image17.png
216
416
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where the bonding of L1 and L3 encompass that found in Compound 1 of the present claims. Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 1 of the present claims.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2016/0181524, hereafter Lee’524) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-20, and as evidenced by Lee et al (US 2015/0349270, hereafter Lee ‘270).
The discussion with respect to Lee ‘524 as set forth in Paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 4, Lee ‘524 teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the hole transport region has the following structure from the anode ([0262]-[0264]):
hole injection layer (HIL) / hole transport layer (HTL) / hole auxiliary layer.
As evidenced by Paragraph [0106] of Lee ‘270 the hole auxiliary layer increases hole injection and/or hole mobility between the anode and the emission layer and blocks electrons. Accordingly, the hole auxiliary layer disclosed by Lee ‘524, can be considered to correspond to the recited electron blocking layer recited in the present claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al (WO 2020/083327, cited on IDS filed on 11/5/2021, see English language translation cited on IDS filed on 5/11/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Qian et al discloses an organic light emitting device with the following layers ([0187]-[0188]):
ITO / hole injection layer / hole transport layer / electron blocking layer / luminescent layer /
electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode,
where ITO (indium tin oxide) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the cathode corresponds to the recited second electrode; and the hole injection, hole transport, luminescent, electron transport layer and electron injection layers correspond to the recited organic layer.
The hole transport layer or electron blocking layer comprises the following compound ([0182], [0188], [0192], and [0163] – Compound 1-8):
PNG
media_image23.png
386
520
media_image23.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to a compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image24.png
229
254
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 to R8 are H; and
L1, L3 to L6 and L8 are H.
L7 corresponds to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image25.png
101
148
media_image25.png
Greyscale
where:
Ar3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; and
Ar4 is a biphenyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C12 aryl group.
L2 corresponds to Formula 2:
PNG
media_image26.png
190
248
media_image26.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Ar1 and Ar2 are phenyl groups, i.e. unsubstituted C6 aryls; and
R9 and R10 are H.
The only difference between the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed is the bonding position of the nitrogen to the carbazole, i.e. the claims require bonding at the 7-position of the carbazole and the reference discloses bonding at the 6-position. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Paragraph [0028] of the reference which discloses the following bonding arrangements of the carbazole to the central nitrogen:
PNG
media_image27.png
78
102
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
82
406
media_image28.png
Greyscale
.
By explicitly disclosing the four (4) possible bonding arrangements of the carbazole to the nitrogen, the reference necessarily recognizes the bonding of the carbazole to the central nitrogen as required by the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound 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 which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
ITO / hole injection layer / hole transport layer / electron blocking layer / luminescent layer /
electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode,
where the hole injection, hole transport, and electron blocking layers correspond to the recited hole transport region disposed on the first electrode. The electron transport and electron injection layers correspond to the recited electron transport region disposed on the light emitting layer; and where the hole transport layer or electron blocking layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 3, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
ITO / hole injection layer / hole transport layer / electron blocking layer / luminescent layer /
electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode,
where the hole injection layer is on the first electrode; the hole transport layer is on the hole injection layer; and the hole transport layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 4, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device:
ITO / hole injection layer / hole transport layer / electron blocking layer / luminescent layer /
electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode,
where the hole transport layer is on the first electrode; the electron blocking layer is on the hole transport layer; and the electron blocking layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 5, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses a compound comprising two (2) amino groups, it is clear that the reference discloses a diamine compound.
Regarding claim 6, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to Formula (4-2):
PNG
media_image29.png
233
444
media_image29.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 7, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to Formula (5-3):
PNG
media_image30.png
212
302
media_image30.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 8, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, R1 to R10 are H.
Regarding claim 9, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 to Ar3 are unsubstituted phenyl groups and Ar4 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group.
Regarding claim 10, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, in Formula (2-1):
PNG
media_image31.png
194
238
media_image31.png
Greyscale
,
R11 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 11, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Ar1 to Ar3 are phenyl groups corresponds to Formula 6-1:
PNG
media_image32.png
109
106
media_image32.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra1 is H.
Furthermore, from the discussion above Ar4 is a biphenyl group corresponding to Formula 6-6:
PNG
media_image33.png
136
232
media_image33.png
Greyscale
where Ra8 and Ra9 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 12, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses Compound 6 of the claims:
PNG
media_image34.png
288
400
media_image34.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 13, Qian et al discloses the following compound ([0163] – Compound 1-8):
PNG
media_image23.png
386
520
media_image23.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to a compound represented by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image24.png
229
254
media_image24.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 to R8 are H; and
L1, L3 to L6 and L8 are H.
L7 corresponds to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image25.png
101
148
media_image25.png
Greyscale
where:
Ar3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; and
Ar4 is a biphenyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C12 aryl group.
L2 corresponds to Formula 2:
PNG
media_image26.png
190
248
media_image26.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Ar1 and Ar2 are phenyl groups, i.e. unsubstituted C6 aryls; and
R9 and R10 are H.
The only difference between the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed is the bonding position of the nitrogen to the carbazole, i.e. the claims require bonding at the 7-position of the carbazole and the reference discloses bonding at the 6-position. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Paragraph [0028] of the reference which discloses the following bonding arrangements of the carbazole to the central nitrogen:
PNG
media_image27.png
78
102
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
82
406
media_image28.png
Greyscale
.
By explicitly disclosing the four (4) possible bonding arrangements of the carbazole to the nitrogen, the reference necessarily recognizes the bonding of the carbazole to the central nitrogen as required by the present claims.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound 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 which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the reference discloses a compound comprising two (2) amino groups, it is clear that the reference discloses a diamine compound.
Regarding claim 15, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to Formula (4-2):
PNG
media_image29.png
233
444
media_image29.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 16, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference corresponds to Formula (5-3):
PNG
media_image30.png
212
302
media_image30.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 17, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Ar1 to A33 are unsubstituted phenyl groups and Ar4 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group.
Regarding claim 18, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above in Formula (2-1):
PNG
media_image31.png
194
238
media_image31.png
Greyscale
,
R11 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 19, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Ar1 to Ar3 are phenyl groups corresponds to Formula 6-1:
PNG
media_image32.png
109
106
media_image32.png
Greyscale
,
where Ra1 is H.
Furthermore, from the discussion above Ar4 is a biphenyl group corresponding to Formula 6-6:
PNG
media_image33.png
136
232
media_image33.png
Greyscale
where Ra8 and Ra9 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 20, Qian et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses Compound 6 of the claims:
PNG
media_image34.png
288
400
media_image34.png
Greyscale
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Formula 1A of Lee '524:
PNG
media_image17.png
216
416
media_image17.png
Greyscale
encompasses broad genus of compounds, permitting numerous substitution patterns with the sole numerical requirement that the sum of c1 to c3 is one or greater, and therefore, the reference broadly encompasses compounds ranging from having a single amine substituent to as many as having twelve amine substituents (c1 to c3 are each 4) on the core structure. However, as discussed in the rejections above, Formula 1A of Lee ‘524 was utilized only for its teaching that in the exemplified compound:
PNG
media_image15.png
406
573
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
the substituents can be found at other positions on the benzene rings, including the positions currently encompassed by the present claims. Thus, it is the Office’s position that the reference does not disclose a broad genus, but rather discloses a formula which provides an explicit teaching where the amine substituents can be positioned on the disclosed compound.
Applicants argue that Formula 1A of Lee '524 provides no meaningful restriction on the positional placement of those substituents. However, as discussed above, Formula 1A provides an explicit teaching where the amine substituents can be positioned on the disclosed compound.
Applicants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not receive guidance from Lee '524 as to which substitution positions or substitution counts should be selected, let alone any motivation to arrive at the specific positional relationships now recited in amended claims
1 and 13. However, as discussed above, Formula 1A of Lee ‘524 was utilized only for its teaching that in the exemplified compound:
PNG
media_image15.png
406
573
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
the substituents can be found at other positions on the benzene rings, including the positions currently encompassed by the present claims. Thus, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of select any of the positions disclosed by reference, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicants argue that such an undirected "pick-and-choose" approach is precisely the type of hindsight reconstruction prohibited under KSR and In re Fine. However, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicants argue that from the universe of possible compounds encompassed by Formula 1A, the only structures that bear any resemblance to the claimed amine compounds are those represented by Formula 1A-2 of Lee '524:
PNG
media_image35.png
204
330
media_image35.png
Greyscale
,
which is excluded by the present claims. However, it is noted that Formula 1A-2 is only drawn to one particular embodiment and the disclosure of this particular embodiment does not obviate the fact that reference discloses the general formula:
PNG
media_image17.png
216
416
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
and this formula encompasses compounds recited in the present claims. To that end it is noted that, “nonpreferred disclosures can be used. A nonpreferred portion of a reference disclosure is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims.” In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding the rejection of claim 12, Applicants argue that Formula 1A of Lee '524:
PNG
media_image17.png
216
416
media_image17.png
Greyscale
encompasses a broad genus of compounds, permitting numerous substitution patterns with the sole numerical requirement that the sum of c1 to c3 is one or greater, and therefore, the reference broadly encompasses compounds ranging from having a single amine substituent to as many as having twelve amine substituents (c1 to c3 are each 4) on the core structure. However, as discussed in the rejections above, Formula 1A of Lee ‘524 was utilized only for its teaching that in the exemplified compound:
PNG
media_image15.png
406
573
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
the substituents can be found at other positions on the benzene rings, including the positions currently encompassed by the present claims. Thus, it is the Office’s position that the reference does not disclose a broad genus, but rather discloses a formula which provides an explicit teaching where the amine substituents can be positioned on the disclosed compound.
Regarding the rejection of claim 12, Applicants argue Lee '524 provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would direct one of ordinary skill in the art to: select the specific bonding pattern present in compound 1; prefer that bonding arrangement over the many other illustrated alternatives; or modify Formula 1A in a manner that uniquely and inevitably leads to compound 1. However, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of select any of the positions disclosed by reference, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success. To that end it is noted that Applicants have not proffered any evidence, i.e. data, that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed compound based on the disclosed of Lee ‘524.
Applicants argue that the Office has not identified any disclosure in Lee '524 explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the specific bonding positions compound 1 has, nor does it point to any property, advantage, or technical effect associated with compound 1 that would motivate such a choice. However, as discussed above, it is the Office’s position, absent evidence to the contrary, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of select any of the positions disclosed by reference, including those presently claimed, and thereby arrive at the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success. To that end it is noted that Applicants have not proffered any evidence, i.e. data, that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed compound based on the disclosed of Lee ‘524.
Applicants argue that one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among
isolated disclosures of elements in the prior art to obviate the claimed invention. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
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, 8:00 AM – 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