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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Claims 14-16 are new due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 08/03/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. US 20200172558 A1 in view of Ito et al. WO-2018164239-A1 as set forth in the last Office action for the reasons discussed below.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 43-49 of the reply dated 07/31/2026 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 45 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 previous reply, 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 44-49 of the reply that the data in the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 08/03/2026 and the specification demonstrate that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. Specifically, the applicant argues device efficiency and lifetime are substantially reduced when a compound different from Chemical Formula 2 is applied to the first organic layer and demonstrated by new examples 70 and 71 in the declaration and comparative examples in the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
195
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
195
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
148
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
150
179
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
475
579
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner's response – 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 and comparison has not been made between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art. All of the comparative examples have compound A-3 as the compound of Chemical Formula 1. This compound differs substantially from the compounds of Joo with respect to the addition of a fused aliphatic ring and bulky substituent groups.
PNG
media_image6.png
178
278
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
148
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 of Joo
Compound in comparative examples
Therefore, it remains unclear what differences in device performance would be observed between the unmodified device of Joo comprising a compound taught by Joo and the modified device in view of Ito, where all other materials in the devices are held the same. However, the cited compounds of Joo are currently encompassed by the claimed Chemical Formal 1. 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_image7.png
116
200
media_image7.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_image8.png
265
255
media_image8.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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. WO-2020218079-A1, see English language equivalent US-20230096132-A1 referred to herein as "Hatakeyama" in view of Itoi et al. US-20160079542-A1 (hereinafter "Itoi").
Regarding claims 1-16, Hatakeyama teaches an organic electroluminescent element comprising an organic layer disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode and comprising a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by a general formula (1) (¶ [0056] and ¶ [0016]), wherein the organic layer comprises a light emitting layer, and wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host and the polycyclic aromatic compound as a dopant (¶ [0056]), which is blue (¶ [0681], Table 2). Hatakeyama teaches examples of the polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) that meet the claimed Chemical Formula 1 including for example compound 1-1821
PNG
media_image9.png
267
415
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and compound 13604
PNG
media_image10.png
295
399
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(page 5).
Hatakeyama does not specifically disclose a device wherein a layer between the positive electrode and the light emitting layer comprises a compound of claimed Chemical Formula 2. However, Hatakeyama teaches the material for the hole transport region (the hole injecting layer and hole transport layer) can be selected for use among compounds that have been conventionally used as charge transporting materials, and that specific examples thereof include a triarylamine derivative (¶ [0191]).
Itoi teaches a laminated structure of at least three layers having different components between an anode and an emission layer of an organic EL device, wherein the laminated structure includes a first layer including a hole transport compound obtained by doping an electron accepting compound having a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of about −9.0 eV to about −4.0 eV and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the emission layer, wherein the second layer is closer to the emission layer than the first layer and includes a compound represented by a Formula 1 (¶ [0008]). Itoi teaches the second layer may be disposed adjacent to, e.g., directly adjacent to, the emission layer (¶ [0055]). Itoi teaches the organic EL device comprising the laminated structure in the hole transport region realizes improvement of emission efficiency and long life (¶ [0010]). Itoi teaches examples of the compound represented by a Formula 1 that meet the claimed Chemical Formula 2 including for example compound 2
PNG
media_image11.png
229
356
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0039], page 4) and compound 19
PNG
media_image12.png
245
351
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0039], page 6).
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 the hole transport region in the device of Hatakeyama out of the laminated structure of Itoi, based on the teaching of Itoi. The motivation for doing so would have been to form a device with improved emission efficiency and long life, as taught by Itoi.
The compound of Hatakeyama is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1. The compound of Itoi is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
Therefore, the modified device of Hatakeyama in view of Itoi meets claims 1-16.
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) 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_image13.png
223
414
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(page 41), which is a compound of claimed Chemical Formual 1.
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
Prosecution Insights