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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 42-45 of the reply dated 01/15/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Joo et al. US 20200172558 A1 in view of Ito et al. WO-2018164239-A1 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 44 that Joo discloses compounds for use in a light emitting layer, and Ito discloses compounds for use in a hole transport layer, but neither reference teaches nor suggests combining these specific compounds in a single device architecture.
Examiner's response – As discussed in the rejection of record and repeated below, while neither Joo nor Ito specifically teach a device comprising a light emitting layer including a compound of Chemical Formula 1 together with a first organic material layer including a compound of Chemical Formula 2, Joo teaches the material for the hole transport region (the hole injecting layer and hole transport layer) is not specially limited so long as it is usually used in the art (¶ [0062]-[0063]) and Ito teaches a compound represented by a formula (1) (¶ [0010]-[0011]), for use in the hole transporting region of an organic EL device (¶ [0236]-[0237]) having improved device lifetime (¶ [0010], ¶ [0043], ¶ [0231]-[0232]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to form a layer in the hole transport region in the device of Joo out of the compound represented by formula (1) of Ito, based on the teaching of Joo and Ito. The motivation for doing so would have been to form a device with improved device lifetime, as taught by Ito.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 44-45 that that the combination of Joo and Ito does not provide a motivation to specifically select the compound of Chemical Formula 2 from among the many possible hole transport materials.
Examiner's response – It is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in that art to look to the prior art to select materials to obtain an organic light emitting device with beneficial properties. As noted above, Ito teaches the hole transport compound of Ito's general formula leads to improved device lifetime. Therefore, one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to include the compound of Ito into the device of Joo for this beneficial property.
Applicant's argument –The applicant argues on pages 44-45 that the combination of Joo and Ito does not suggest that combining the specific compounds of Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 would yield the synergistic benefits demonstrated by the instant application.
Examiner's response – It appears that the applicant is making an argument of unexpected results. Specifically, the applicant argues that the Comparative Examples of the instant application demonstrate that device efficiency and lifetime are substantially reduced when a compound different from Chemical Formula 2 is applied to the first organic layer and that when a compound having a different biphenylene orientation or a different carbazole linking position is used instead of the compound of Chemical Formula 2, the resulting device exhibits inferior performance.
The applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Comparison must be between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
First, it is noted that an improvement in lifetime with the addition of the compound of Ito is expected in the view of the teachings of improvement of lifetime of Ito.
Second, the evidence of nonobviousness does not appear to be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support and what is taught by the prior art. While comparison is made between devices comprising a compound as claimed and comparative compounds having a different biphenylene orientation and/or a different carbazole linking position, none of the compounds in the examples comprising claimed compounds appear to show a phenylene-dibenzofuranyl substituent on the amine (wherein claims L1/L2 is a phenylene group and claimed Ar1/Ar2 is a dibenzofuranyl group), as is the case in the cited compound of Ito. Therefore, it is unclear what differences in device performance would be observed between the unmodified device of Joo and the modified device in view of Ito when the hole transport compound comprises a phenylene-dibenzofuranyl substituent on the amine, where all other materials in the devices are held the same. However, such a compound is currently encompassed by the claims. Applicant has not currently provided an explanation regarding this difference.
For at least the reasons outlined above, the rejection is respectfully maintained.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. US 20200172558 A1 (hereinafter "Joo") in view of Ito et al. WO-2018164239-A1 (hereinafter "Ito", see English language equivalent US-20200024263-A1 referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1-13, Joo teaches an organic electroluminescent device including one or more organic layers interposed between a first and second electrode wherein at least one of the organic layers includes the polycyclic aromatic compound represented by Formula A-1 or A-2 (¶ 0009]), wherein the one or more organic layers include a hole injecting layer, a hole transport layer, a hole blocking layer, a light emitting layer, an electron blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injecting layer (¶ [0042]), and wherein the polycyclic aromatic compound represented by Formula A-1 or A-2 is a dopant in the light emitting layer (¶ [0179]). Joo teaches the device comprising the compound achieves high efficiency and long lifetime (¶ [0010]). Joo teaches examples of the polycyclic aromatic compound represented by Formula A-1 or A-2 (¶ [0037]) including Compounds 1
PNG
media_image1.png
116
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, Compound 2, Compound 5, Compound and 6 (page 4).
Joo does not specifically disclose a device wherein a layer between the anode and the light emitting layer comprises a compound of claimed Chemical Formula 2. However, Joo teaches the material for the hole transport region (the hole injecting layer and hole transport layer) are not specially limited so long as it is usually used in the art (¶ [0062]-[0063]).
Ito teaches a compound represented by a formula (1) (¶ [0010]-[0011]), for use in the hole transporting region of an organic EL device (¶ [0236]-[0237]). Joo teaches that an organic EL device comprising the compound has improved device lifetime (¶ [0010], ¶ [0043], ¶ [0231]-[0232]). Joo teaches specific examples of the compound represented by a formula (1) including Compound 1
PNG
media_image2.png
265
255
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 311).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a layer in the hole transport region in the device of Joo out of the compound represented by formula (1) of Ito, based on the teaching of Joo and Ito. The motivation for doing so would have been to form a device with improved device lifetime, as taught by Ito.
The compound of Joo is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1. The compound of Ito is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
Therefore, the modified device of Joo in view of Ito meets claims 1-13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Suh et al. WO-2019164331--A1 (see English language equivalent US-20210184121-A1 referred to herein) Teaches an organic light emitting device including one or more organic material layers provided between a first electrode and a second electrode, (¶ [0012]) wherein the one or more organic material layers include a light emitting layer comprising a heterocyclic compound of Chemical Formula 1 (¶ [0117]) as a dopant (¶ [0121]), and further comprise a hole injection layer and a hole transfer layer, or a layer carrying out hole injection and transfer at the same time between the anode and the light emitting layer (¶ [0101], ¶ [0107], ¶ [0116]) and teaches examples of the compound including Compound 1
PNG
media_image3.png
223
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 41), which is a compound of claimed Chemical Formual 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786