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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed March 31, 2026, which amends claims 1, 13, and 15 and adds claim 21. Claims 1 and 5-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 31, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as set forth in the Office action mailed January 8, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 31, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 5-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0245148) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) as set forth in the Office action mailed January 8, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 31, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0245148) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) and Hwang et al. (US 2014/0361255) as set forth in the Office action mailed January 8, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 31, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0245148) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) and Hachiya et al. (US 2006/0232196) as set forth in the Office action mailed January 8, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-12, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2019/124903), where Lee et al. (US 2020/0321530) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) (hereafter “Cha”).
Regarding claims 1, 5-12, 14-17, and 19, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an auxiliary layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0154]-[0158]). Lee teaches that the hole injection layer is composed of 2-TNATA,
PNG
media_image1.png
222
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and the hole transporting layer is composed of NPB,
PNG
media_image2.png
161
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0154]). Park teaches that the auxiliary layer is can be composed of the following compound,
PNG
media_image3.png
186
263
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
148
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
220
226
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image6.png
148
247
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
166
188
media_image7.png
Greyscale
are a few examples and are the same as the claimed first compounds in the instant application (paragraphs [0072] and [0155]). Lee teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in electronic devices (paragraph [0075]).
Lee does not teach where the electroluminescent device comprises a layer between the auxiliary layer and the light emitting layer.
Cha teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an electron blocking layer (applicant’s second auxiliary layer) in contact with the layer emitting layer between the hole transporting layer and the light emitting layer (paragraphs [0079] and [0141]-[0151]). Cha teaches that the electron blocking layer can be composed of the following compound,
PNG
media_image8.png
176
197
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
173
183
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image10.png
163
192
media_image10.png
Greyscale
are a few examples and the same as applicant’s claimed second compounds (paragraphs [0068] and [0141]-[0151]). Park teaches that using these compounds as electron blocking materials leads to device improve performance, service life, and efficiency (paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the device of Lee to include the electron blocking layer (applicant’s second auxiliary layer) of Cha. The motivation would have been to improve the performance, service life, and efficiency of the device.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2019/124903), where Lee et al. (US 2020/0321530) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) (hereafter “Cha”) as applied to claim 1, 5-12, 14-17, and 19 above.
Regarding claim 13, the compounds of Lee are positional isomers of the applicant’s claimed compounds.
Lee in view of Cha do not teach compounds that meet the applicant’s claimed compounds.
The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state " A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c).” and “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
Isomers having the same empirical formula but different structures are not necessarily considered equivalent by chemists skilled in the art and therefore are not necessarily suggestive of each other. Ex parte Mowry, 91 USPQ 219 (Bd. App. 1950) (claimed cyclohexylstyrene not prima facie obvious over prior art isohexylstyrene). Similarly, homologs which are far removed from adjacent homologs may not be expected to have similar properties. In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960) (prior art disclosure of C8 to C12 alkyl sulfates was not sufficient to render prima facie obvious claimed C1 alkyl sulfate).
Homology and isomerism involve close structural similarity which must be considered with all other relevant facts in determining the issue of obviousness. In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967). Homology should not be automatically equated with prima facie obviousness because the claimed invention and the prior art must each be viewed “as a whole.” In re Langer, 465 F.2d 896, 175 USPQ 169 (CCPA 1972) (Claims to a polymerization process using a sterically hindered amine were held unobvious over a similar prior art process because the prior art disclosed a large number of unhindered amines and only one sterically hindered amine (which differed from a claimed amine by 3 carbon atoms), and therefore the reference as a whole did not apprise the ordinary artisan of the significance of hindered amines as a class.).”
It would have been a prima facie case of obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the attachment position of the amine groups on the dibenzofuran group so the compounds are the same as applicant’s compounds A-5, A-7, A-9, A-10, A-12, A-15, and A-23. The compounds Lee are positional isomers to the applicant’s compounds and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to derive the applicant’s claimed compounds. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds to act in a similar manner as the other compounds of Lee.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2019/124903), where Lee et al. (US 2020/0321530) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) (hereafter “Cha”) as applied to claim 1, 5-12, 14-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2014/0361255) (hereafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Cha does not teach where the hole injection or hole transporting layer further comprises a charge-generation material.
Hwang teaches that one can increase the conductivity of the hole injection layer or the hole transportation layer by adding a charge-generation material to the layer (paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Lee in view of Cha to further include a charge-generation material. The motivation would have been to improve the conductivity of either the hole injection layer or the hole transportation layer.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2019/124903), where Lee et al. (US 2020/0321530) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) (hereafter “Cha”) as applied to claims 1, 5-12, 14-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Hachiya et al. (US 2006/0232196) (hereafter “Hachiya”).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches that the device can be used in electronic devices.
Park in view of Cha does not teach the structure of the device and the components the device can contain.
Hachiya teaches electroluminescent devices that can be used in electronic devices (paragraph [0038]). Hachiya teaches that the device can comprise an color conversion member to change the color of the emitted light (paragraph [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Lee in view of Cha to include the color conversion member as taught by Hachiya. The motivation would have been to change the color of emitted light out of the electroluminescent device.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2019/124903), where Lee et al. (US 2020/0321530) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) (hereafter “Cha”) as applied to claims 1, 5-12, 14-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Senkovskyy, et al. (WO 2018/215348) (hereafter “Senkovskyy”).
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches that the electroluminescent device comprises an electron injection layer (paragraph [0157]).
Lee in view of Cha does not teach where electron injection layer comprises a mixture of Yb:KI at a thickness between 0.3nm-9nm.
Senkovskyy teaches that one can decrease the operating voltage of the device if a 50:50 mixture of Yb:KI at a thickness of 2 nm is used as the electron injection material (pages 80-83, Table 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee in view of Cha to make the electron injection layer is 2 nm and is composed of a 50:50 mixture of Yb:KI as taught by Senkovskyy. The motivation would have been to lower the operating voltage of the electroluminescent device.
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 ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights