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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 01/20/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 10 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
In the claim set dated 04/07/2025, claim 6 was canceled without correcting the dependency of child claim 8.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, any rejection possible should be made as early in the prosecution process as possible (MPEP 2173.06). If a new ground of rejection, which was not necessitated by amendment, is introduced by examiner, the next office action should not be made final (MPEP 706.07).
In compliance with MPEP 706.07, a new non-final office action is furnished herein to replace the non-final office action dated 09/17/2025.
This office action is in response to the claims and remarks dated 01/20/2026.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the host of Kim potentially possesses a higher refractive index than ADN, Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
The independent claim does not limit the composition of the emissive layer nor exclude the host material of Kim. The independent claim only requires that the emissive layer includes a host and that host has a refractive index lesser than the refractive index of the organic functional layer. As Kim teaches the emissive layer may comprise the host material ADN, the host compound of Kim meets the requirements of the instant independent claim.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the independent claim has been amended to exclude the compounds of Kim, Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
With respect to the data presented for the compounds of Kim and Applicant’s argument that the emissive layer host compound of Formula 1 of Kim does not have the appropriate refractive index relationship with the compound of the hole blocking layer, Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for at least three reasons.
At the outset, please be advised that any experimental or theoretical data that Applicant wishes to be considered must either be present in the original, as-filed specification, or submitted in the form of a declaration. For the purpose of continuing examination, the data presented for the compounds of Kim will be discussed, but should any claims be found to be allowable, the application cannot go to patent until the data is resubmitted in a declaration.
First, Examiner notes that the compounds of Formula I of Kim are not used in the rejection of the independent claim. The independent claim requires that a singular host material in the emissive layer has a refractive index less than the refractive index of the organic functional layer. Kim teaches the emissive layer may comprise the host compound ADN (see paragraph 12 of the Non-Final office action dated 09/17/2025 and paragraph 0143 of Kim). As ADN is used as a host compound in the preferred embodiments of the claimed invention (see table 2 of the instant specification), it is interpreted to meet the refractive index requirements of the independent claim.
Second, with respect to dependent claim 2 which requires the refractive index of the entire emissive layer, rather than just one host compound, the data presented is also not persuasive. Applicant has only provided data for an emissive layer comprising only the compound of Formula 1 of Kim, rather than an emissive layer comprising a mixture of a compound of Formula I of Kim and ADN, as in the instant case. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that refractive index of a mixture can be influenced by a multitude of factors such as the refractive indices of the compounds of the mixture, as well as their relative percent composition of the mixture. Applicant has not presented any data that would demonstrate that every mixture ratio of ADN and any compound of Formula I of Kim would always have a refractive index higher than the claimed polycyclic compound.
Third, theoretical results in and of themselves are of no practical significance, but rather are valuable insofar as they can be positively correlated to experimentally measured performance improvements and/or experimentally measured and practically significant changes in properties (MPEP 716.02). Applicant has presented no evidence that the presented calculated refractive indices are representative of indices that would similarly be observed in experimental results. Therefore, absent additional evidence showing that the refractive indices would be reasonably expected to be representative of indices of mixtures that would similarly be observed in experimental results, the argument is not persuasive.
For at least these reasons, a reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
With respect to claim 8, the claim is deemed incomplete because depends on canceled claim 6 (MPEP 608.01(n) and 37 CFR 1.75).
In continuing examination, claim 8 is being interpreted as dependent on the organic electroluminescent device of claim 1.
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0013430 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses an organic electroluminescent device including a first electrode (an anode, paragraph 0125), a second electrode (a cathode, paragraph 0220), an emission layer, a hole transport region between the first electrode an the emission layer, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, and the organic functional layer further comprises a hole blocking layer between the emissive layer and electron transport layer (paragraph 0013).
The emission layer includes a host, such as ADN (paragraph 0143), and the organic functional layer (the hole blocking layer), consists of an organic compound represented by Formula 2 (paragraph 0015), such as the compound below (page 31).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim also teaches that in Formula 2, R11 can be a naphthyl group represented by Formula 6-9, and R12 can be a naphthyl group represented by Formula 6-10 (paragraph 0100).
PNG
media_image2.png
94
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
126
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when the polycyclic aromatic moiety is an anthracene group, a is 1 and R is a naphthyl group, and the electron withdrawing group is a pyrimidinyl group.
Examiner is interpreting ADN and the anthracene compound above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 48 (ADN, table 2) and 45 (Compound 2) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Kim read on the claims.
Kim is silent to the refractive index and HOMO of the organic functional layer comprising the anthracene compound relative to the emissive layer comprising the host material, ADN. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when these compounds are used as materials in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kim, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kim was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combination of ADN as a host in the emission layer and the anthracene compound in an organic functional layer such as a hole blocking layer in order to obtain an organic light-emitting device with improved lifespan characteristics and high efficiency (paragraph 0267), as taught by Kim.
With respect to claim 2, Kim teaches the device of claim 1, and the organic functional layer is in direct contact with the emissive layer (paragraph 0204).
Examiner is interpreting ADN and the anthracene compound above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 48 (ADN, table 2) and 45 (Compound 2) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Kim read on the claims.
Kim is silent to the refractive index of the organic functional layer comprising the anthracene compound relative to the emissive layer comprising the host material, ADN. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when these compounds are used as materials in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kim, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kim was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 3, Kim teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the anthracene compound above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 45 (Compound 2) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Kim reads on the claim.
Kim is silent to the refractive index of the organic functional layer comprising the anthracene compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kim, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kim was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 4, Kim teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner would like to note that the organic functional layer comprising Compound 2 of the instant specification, which is pictured and discussed above in claim 1, is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim of having a refractive index of 1.8 or greater through its use as a preferred embodiment of the invention (Compound 2, page 45 of the instant specification).
Kim is silent to the refractive index of the compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Kim reads on the claims. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kim, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kim was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Kim also teaches that the emissive layer may comprise a fluorescent dopant such as the well-known blue fluorescent dopant TBPe (paragraph 0188).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate TBPe into the emissive layer and obtain a blue emissive layer, as taught by Kim.
With respect to claim 5, Kim teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the anthracene compound above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 45 (Compound 2) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Kim reads on the claim.
Kim is silent to the HOMO of the organic functional layer comprising the anthracene compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kim, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kim was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 8, Kim teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the anthracene compound above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 45 (Compound 2) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Kim reads on the claim.
Kim is silent to the electron absorptivity of the electron withdrawing moiety and the polycyclic aromatic ring moiety of the anthracene compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the compound. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kim, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed compound and the compound in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kim was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0013430 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0364694 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Kim teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Kim does not teach nor fairly suggest that the electron transport area further comprises an auxiliary electron transport layer and the organic functional layer is the auxiliary electron transport layer.
In analogous art, Lee teaches an organic compound for use in an optoelectronic device (abstract).
Lee teaches that in organic light emitting diodes, they may optionally comprise an auxiliary layer such as a hole blocking layer for improving efficiency and stability of an organic light emitting diode (paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Kim in an auxiliary layer (a hole blocking layer) as taught by Kim, as Lee teaches that this is another name for and function of an auxiliary layer and which improves the efficiency and stability of an organic light emitting diode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 Boyd can be reached at 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights