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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tang fails to disclose the C3-C60 electron withdrawing heteroaryl groups of the claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
96
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
because they are not in the specific compounds 374 and 376. This argument is not convincing. Specific compounds 374 and 376 were previously cited to show the general structure of the disclosed compounds with the exemplified naphthalene bridging to dibenzofuran. As discussed in the rejection below, Tang also discloses the above heterocyclic groups, see for example Formulae (I) on p3 which is equivalent to the heterocyclic groups in 374 and 376:
PNG
media_image2.png
197
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
180
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
193
232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
191
213
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wherein L3 includes substituted naphthalene [claim 1]. For formulae (I-4), (I-9), and (I-14), Z includes CR13 wherein R13 may be hydrogen or a cyano group [claim 1] and for Formula (I-1), (I-6), and (I-11), R7 includes a cyano group [claim 1].
However, the narrowing of the claims has made the rejection over Tang change from a 102/103 to a 103. All of the elements of the claims are disclosed, but not with sufficient specificity to merit anticipation.
Applicant’s response does not address the rejections based on Yoo et al (US 20190378981 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: from the last line of structures on page 7 of 13 of the claims of 12/10/2025, there are repeated or additional structures that appear to have been mistakenly included in the claims. The scope of the claim is clear since the first two lines of claim 16 make clear when structures are required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (CN 109824659 A).
Tang discloses compounds for an organic layer or a CPL (capping layer) in an OLED device [abstract, claims 6-7] and a display element comprising the OLED [claim 8] wherein compounds include those of the formulae:
PNG
media_image6.png
111
119
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[p46]
PNG
media_image7.png
135
121
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[p59]
And may be substituted with a cyano group [claim 1]. The OLED has the claimed stack of layers [Fig 1]. Tang also disclose the generic formulae (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
197
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
180
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
187
246
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
175
206
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
193
232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
191
213
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[p3, claim 2]
Wherein L3 includes substituted naphthalene [claim 1]. For formulae (I-4), (I-9), and (I-14), Z includes CR13 wherein R13 may be hydrogen or a cyano group [claim 1] and for Formula (I-1), (I-6), and (I-11), R7 includes a cyano group [claim 1].
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, Tang discloses the generic formula (I-4):
PNG
media_image3.png
180
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p3, claim 2]
Wherein L3 includes substituted naphthalene and Z includes CR13 wherein R13 may be hydrogen or a cyano group [claim 1]. When L3 is a naphthalene, and L1 and L2 are phenylene, the cyano substituted compound will read on at least compounds P1 through P8.
If Applicant argues that the claimed embodiments are not disclosed with sufficient specificity and that Examiner is picking and choosing with improper hindsight, Examiner notes that the rejection is made under 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that there a finite number of disclosed L, X and Z groups that would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to prepare the claimed combination of naphthalene bridge, two phenylene bridges, and cyano functional groups. The claims are obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al (US 20190378981 A1).
Yoo discloses OLED devices with the claimed layer stack [abstract, 0029-0032] including a capping layer (CPL) with a compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image10.png
67
201
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[abstract]
Wherein R includes a cyano group [0009], and many embodiments wherein L1 is a naphthalene group. Specific embodiments include compounds 101, 97 and 99
PNG
media_image11.png
303
287
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
245
521
media_image12.png
Greyscale
[p20].
The difference between the disclosed compounds the claimed compound is that the claimed compound has a 2,6-naphthalene linking group as opposed to the phenylene group, and the disclosed napthyl end groups do not have a cyano group. However, Ar1, Ar2, L1 and R in formula 1 may be substituted with cyano functional groups [0019, claim 3], and the disclosed L1 may alternatively be a 2,6-napthylene group [0015, 0022, compound 92]:
PNG
media_image13.png
348
387
media_image13.png
Greyscale
[p19].
If Applicant argues that the claimed embodiments are not disclosed with sufficient specificity and that examiner is picking and choosing with improper hindsight, Examiner notes that the rejection is made under 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that there a finite number of disclosed L1, Ar1, Ar2, and R groups that would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to prepare the claimed combination of naphthalene-fused ring group, aryl-X, Aryl-Y, and cyano functional groups. The claims are obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
The use for the OLEDs includes display devices [0003].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al (CN 109824659 A) in view of Choi et al (US 20140070195 A1).
Tang does not disclose the second capping layer disposed on the first capping layer.
Choi et al discloses OLED with a sequential stack of layers [abstract], similar to Tang. Choi discloses forming a first capping layer on the electrode, and then depositing lithium fluoride (LiF) to form a second capping layer on the first capping layer (the side opposite the electrode) [0131].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have added the claimed second capping layer to the OLED of Tang because Choi teaches that a second capping layer can be added to the first capping layer by depositing LiF thereon. One would have been motivated to add the second capping layer in order to improve the functioning of the capping layer known to the skilled artisan, i.e. light transmittance and light emitting efficiency, and color purity.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al (US 20190378981 A1) in view of Choi et al (US 20140070195 A1).
Yoo does not disclose the second capping layer disposed on the first capping layer. Yoo does disclose, however, that the capping layer is used to enhance light-emitting efficiency and color purity [0005, 0029, 0035].
Choi et al discloses OLED with a sequential stack of layers [abstract], similar to Tang. Choi discloses forming a first capping layer on the electrode, and then depositing lithium fluoride (LiF) to form a second capping layer on the first capping layer (the side opposite the electrode) [0131].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have added the claimed second capping layer to the OLED of Tang because Choi teaches that a second capping layer can be added to the first capping layer by depositing LiF thereon. One would have been motivated to add the second capping layer in order to improve the functioning of the capping layer known to the skilled artisan, i.e. light transmittance and light emitting efficiency, and color purity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766