/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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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 1-16, 21, 25-27 and 29 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.
As amended, the instant claims require “an evaporated layer”. It is unclear what is intended by the term evaporated. Based on the specification, Applicant appears to intend but not define evaporation methods as being those based on a vacuum deposition method. However, for most materials, when vacuum deposition methods are employed, the materials undergo a sublimation and deposition process and the layer and material thereof is never evaporated as claimed. By contrast, laeyrs applied with solution methods require the evaporation of the solvent from the layer and therefore might be considered evaporated. Further, these methods do not describe the layer per se but the method by which it is applied. An ‘evaporated’ layer would be a layer in the vapor phase. Taken together, it is unclear what Applicant intends as an “evaporated layer”.
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.
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 1-16, 21-22, 25-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2017/0222158) (Jung) in view of Male et al (US 2010/0013377) (Male).
In reference to claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, 21-22, and 25-26, Jung teaches an organic light emitting device and display device (Jung Abstract) comprising a material of formula 1 as shown below in an auxiliary electron transport layer that can be applied by a deposition or inkjet process and further comprises an electron transport layer including Liq (see e.g. Jung [0248] [0123])
PNG
media_image1.png
408
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 1, Z10 to Z12 are each N, Z1 to Z9 are each CH, R1 is a substituted phenyl wherein the substituents are t-butyl groups, and R2 is an unsubstituted pyrimidine (Jung [0013]- [0019]; [0038]; [0041]).
Jung discloses the compound of formula 1 above that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula 1, Z10 to Z12 are each N, Z1 to Z9 are each CH, R1 is a substituted phenyl wherein the substituents are t-butyl groups, and R2 is an unsubstituted pyrimidine. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Jung are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Jung and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Jung does not provide any specific motivation to include t-butyl groups over other substituents but exemplifies it as a preferred alkyl group option.
With respect to the difference, Male teaches, in analogous art, that t-butyl groups are useful as solubilizing substituents on triazine compounds that improve solution processing, reduce crystallinity of films formed from deposition processing and can be used to tune physical properties of the resulting film and produce a device with better performance (Male [0035] [0036] [0042] examples throughout).
In light of the motivation of using t-butyl groups as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the t-butyl groups as described by Male in order to improve solution processing, reduce crystallinity of films formed from deposition processing and can be used to tune physical properties of the resulting film and produce a device with better performance and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Jung in view of Male are silent with respect to the refractive index of the compound described above, the compound is identical to the instantly claimed material and the claimed refractive index is inherent to the material itself. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
While Jung refers to the layer comprising the compound of formula 1 as an “auxiliary electron transport layer” and not just an “EL layer” the name of a layer does not meaningfully limit the layer itself. The layer of Jung meets all composition (i.e. comprises the compound) and relative positional requirements (i.e. none) of the instant claims and therefore meets the claim limitations.
For Claim 1: Reads on Q1 to Q3 are each N, R0 is G1-1, R2 is pyrimidine, R4 is aryl substituted with alkyl groups.
For Claim 2: Reads on Q1 to Q3 are each N, R2 is pyrimidine, R4 is aryl substituted with alkyl groups.
For Claim 3: Reads on Q1 to Q3 are each N, R2 is pyrimidine, R4 is aryl substituted with alkyl groups.
For Claim 4-5: Reads on G1-2.
For Claim 8: Reads on alkyl groups.
For Claim 9: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 10: Reads on ra-5.
For Claim 11: Reads on where no pyridine is present.
For Claim 12 and 25: Reads wherein no alicyclic group is present.
For Claim 13 and 26: Reads on t butyl.
For Claim 16: Reads on 137.
For Claim 21-22: Reads on wherein R2 is G1-2, m is 0, n is 1 and R20 is pyrimidine.
In reference to claims 27 and 29, Jung in view of Male teaches the device as described above for claims 1-2 including Liq in an electron transport layer that meets the instant claim requirements. That is, Applicant specifically states in the instant application that the electron transport layers are not limited to a single layer and may be a stack of two or more layers each containing any of the above substances (paragraph [0233] of the instant specification). Therefore, while Jung includes Liq in an adjacent electron transport layer, this still reads on the instant claims as there is no requirement that the layer have a uniform concentration of both Liq and the compound of formula G1 or G2. That is, Jung discloses an electron transport layer comprising two layers together including the claimed materials that meets the claim requirements.
In reference to claims 6-7 and 14-15, Jung in view of Male teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Jung further teaches that the linking group L2 can be phenylene groups and exemplifies
PNG
media_image2.png
70
128
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a preferred embodiment of this group (see Jung [0087] and many example compounds).
Jung discloses the compound of formula 1 above that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula 1, L2 is a phenylene group as shown above. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Jung are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Jung and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2017/0222158) (Jung) in view of Male et al (US 2010/0013377) (Male) and further in view of Negi et al (Microsystem Technologies (2018) 24: 4981-89) (Negi).
In reference to claims 28 and 30, Jung in view of Male teaches the device as described above for claims 1-2. Jung does not expressly teach that the devices therein include a hole blocking layer. However, such layers are exceptionally well known in the art.
With respect to the difference, Negi teaches in analogous art that the inclusion of hole blocking and electron blocking layers result in improvements in luminance compared to devices without such layers (see Negi abstract and throughout).
In light of the motivation of using hole blocking layers as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the hole blocking layers as described by Negi in order to improve luminance and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant first argues that Male teaches an improvement to solubility and solution processing for the rationale to select t-butyl groups. This argument has been fully considered. Initially, Applicant has not required that the layer is not formed through a solution process. Indeed, a layer that has been evaporated as claimed appears to most accurately describe solution methods wherein the solvent from the layer is evaporated away. Further, Applicant has ignored the additional teaching recited by Male for deposition methods specifically that the groups can reduce crystallinity of films formed from deposition processing and can be used to tune physical properties of the resulting film and produce a device with better performance.
Applicant further argues that the organic EL materials appear to be a field with low predictability similar to many pharmaceutical and chemical arts. This argument is not convincing. Pharmaceutical or agricultural arts involve the interaction of one or more chemicals with a vast array of unknown variables in a biological system. In stark contrast, the application of chemicals in an OLED is highly controlled and involves purposeful mixtures of purified materials into an entirely man-made device. Further the material properties critical to the function of an OLED device are predictable using well known methods. That is, the organic EL materials art is vastly more predictable than other applications of chemical arts.
Applicant further argues that the selection of one or more of 15 R different R groups as either a substituted pyrimidinyl, pyrazinyl, or triazinyl group and a proportion of carbon atoms forming bonds by sp3 orbitals being in a specific range gives rise to the desired range of refractive index. However, Applicant has not provided sufficient examples to demonstrate that the claimed range is responsible for the exceptionally broad structural limitations.
The outstanding rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jennifer A. 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 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights