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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on January 19, 2026, March 10, 2026, and March 27, 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on January 26, 2022. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed January 29, 2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-21 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2015/0102734 A) is withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 12-21 have been amended.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the double patenting rejections should be withdrawn because the rejections are provisional and the finality has not yet been determined, Examiner disagrees.
Section 804.I.B.I.b.i. of the MPEP states that only once the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is the only remaining rejection in an application having the earlier filing date, should the rejection be withdrawn and a patent issued. As the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not the only remaining rejection, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments 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.
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2023/0125420 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Jin discloses an organic electronic element (luminescence device), including a first electrode (an anode, 110), a hole transport layer (130), an emitting layer (140), an electron transport layer (150), and a second electrode (a cathode, 170) (paragraphs 0067-0068 and FIG. 1), and the hole transport layer comprises a compound of Formula 2 (paragraph 0080), such as compound N-13 (page 43), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Jin Formula 2-2 (paragraphs 0184 and 0153), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
242
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bonding position between the dibenzofuranyl moiety and the central amine nitrogen atom.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
When the substituted dibenzofuran moiety of N-13 is bonded to the central amine nitrogen at the 4-position, the isomeric compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-2, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-3.
In Formula 2-1, X is an oxygen atom, Ra is bonded to the nitrogen atom of Formula 1, Re is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
In Formula 2-2, m is 1 and L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group of 10 ring-forming carbon atoms (naphthylene), and Ar1 is a unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl).
In Formula 2-3, Y is an oxygen atom, n is 0 and L2 is not present, q and p are 0, and R4 and R5 are not present.
Jin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jin being a lack of the aforementioned bonding pattern being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible bonding position on the dibenzofuran moiety from the finite list of possible bonding positions to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which achieves high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance in an organic electroluminescent device, and greatly improved color purity and lifespan (paragraph 0013), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, 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 Jin in the hole transport layer of an organic electroluminescent device with the claimed device structure in order to achieve high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance in an organic electroluminescent device, and greatly improved color purity and lifespan (paragraph 0013), as taught by Jin.
With respect to claim 2, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, and the hole transport region also includes a hole injection layer (120, FIG 1), and the compound is in the hole transport layer, as discussed above.
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 in the hole transporting layer of a device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Jin.
With respect to claim 4, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that there is free rotation about the central amine nitrogen atom.
In this respect, Jin teaches a compound of parent claim 1 wherein R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-3, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-2.
Examiner notes that in Jin Formula 2-2, pictured above, Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bonding position of the phenyl group (R15) on the dibenzofuran moiety.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
In one such isomer, the moiety of Formula 2-1 is also represented by instant Formula 2-1-1 when X is oxygen, Rh is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, wherein R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-2, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-3, as discussed above.
Formula 2-1 is also represented by instant Formula 2-1-2 for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that there is free rotation about the central amine nitrogen atom.
In this respect, Jin teaches a compound of parent claim 1 wherein R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-3, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-2.
Formula 2-1 is also represented by instant Formula 2-1-2 for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 7, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, and R2 is represented by Formula 2-2 and R3 is represented by Formula 2-3, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that in Jin Formula 2-2, Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bonding pattern between the dibenzofuran and amine nitrogen, and between the phenyl substituent and the dibenzofuran moiety.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
In one such isomer, the R1 moiety of Formula 2-1 is also represented by instant Formula 2-1-3 when X is oxygen, Rh is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that, in Jin Formula 2-2 which is pictured and discussed above, Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bonding pattern between the dibenzofuran moiety and the phenyl substituent.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
One such isomer meets the requirements of instant Formula 3-1 when X is oxygen, Rh is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 1 is represented by instant Formula 4-2, for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that in Jin Formula 2-2, Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bonding pattern between the dibenzofuran and amine nitrogen, nor is Jin limiting with respect to the bonding position between the phenyl substituent and the dibenzofuran moiety.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
One such isomer meets the requirements of instant Formula 5-2 when X is oxygen, Rf is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, and L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group of 10 ring-forming carbon atoms (naphthylene) and L2 is not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 12, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that, in Jin Formula 2-2 which is pictured and discussed above, Jin is also non-limiting with respect to the bonding pattern between the dibenzofuranyl moiety and the phenyl substituent.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such an isomeric compound is instant compound A38
With respect to claim 13, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
By way of example, Jin also teaches that in Formula 2-2 which is pictured and discussed above, L6 is a direct bond and Ar5 is a phenanthrenyl group (see at least N-19 and N-20 on page 44).
Such a modification produces instant Compound I52.
Jin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jin being a lack of the aforementioned bonding pattern being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible bonding position on the dibenzofuranyl moiety from the finite list of four possible bonding positions to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which achieves high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance in an organic electroluminescent device, and greatly improved color purity and lifespan (paragraph 0013), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 14, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Jin also teaches that in Formula 2-2, L5 and L6 are preferably a phenylene group (paragraph 0129, line 4), and Ar5 is preferably a naphthyl group (paragraph 0134, line 4).
Further, Examiner also notes that in Formula 2-2, Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bond location between the phenyl group and the dibenzofuran moiety, nor is Jin limiting with respect to the bond locations between the dibenzofuran moieties and the amine nitrogen.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such modifications produce instant L63.
Jin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jin being a lack of the aforementioned bonding pattern being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible bonding position on the dibenzofuranyl moiety from the finite list of four possible bonding positions to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which achieves high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance in an organic electroluminescent device, and greatly improved color purity and lifespan (paragraph 0013), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 15, Jin discloses compound N-13 (page 43), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Jin Formula 2-2 (paragraphs 0184 and 0153), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
242
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bonding position between the dibenzofuranyl moiety and the central amine nitrogen atom.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
When the substituted dibenzofuran moiety of N-13 is bonded to the central amine nitrogen at the 4-position, the isomeric compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when R1 is represented by Formula 2-1, R2 is represented by Formula 2-2, and R3 is represented by Formula 2-3.
In Formula 2-1, X is an oxygen atom, Ra is bonded to the nitrogen atom of Formula 1, Re is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
In Formula 2-2, m is 1 and L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group of 10 ring-forming carbon atoms (naphthylene), and Ar1 is a unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl).
In Formula 2-3, Y is an oxygen atom, n is 0 and L2 is not present, q and p are 0, and R4 and R5 are not present.
Jin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jin being a lack of the aforementioned bonding pattern being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible bonding position on the dibenzofuran moiety from the finite list of possible bonding positions to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which achieves high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance in an organic electroluminescent device, and greatly improved color purity and lifespan (paragraph 0013), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 16, Jin teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that, in Jin Formula 2-2 which is pictured and discussed above, Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bonding pattern between the dibenzofuran moiety and the phenyl substituent.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
One such isomer meets the requirements of instant Formula 3-1 when X is oxygen, Rh is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 17, Jin teaches the compound of claim 15, and the compound of Formula 1 is represented by instant Formula 4-2, for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 18, Jin teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that in Jin Formula 2-2, Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bonding pattern between the dibenzofuran and amine nitrogen, nor is Jin limiting with respect to the bonding position between the phenyl substituent and the dibenzofuran moiety.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
One such isomer meets the requirements of instant Formula 5-2 when X is oxygen, Rf is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 19, Jin teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that, in Jin Formula 2-2 which is pictured and discussed above, Jin is also non-limiting with respect to the bonding pattern between the dibenzofuranyl moiety and the phenyl substituent.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such an isomeric compound is instant compound A38
With respect to claim 20, Jin teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
By way of example, Jin also teaches that in Formula 2-2 which is pictured and discussed above, L6 is a direct bond and Ar5 is a phenanthrenyl group (see at least N-19 and N-20 on page 44).
Such a modification produces instant Compound I52.
Jin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jin being a lack of the aforementioned bonding pattern being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible bonding position on the dibenzofuranyl moiety from the finite list of four possible bonding positions to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which achieves high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance in an organic electroluminescent device, and greatly improved color purity and lifespan (paragraph 0013), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 20, Jin teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
Jin also teaches that in Formula 2-2, L5 and L6 are preferably a phenylene group (paragraph 0129, line 4), and Ar5 is preferably a naphthyl group (paragraph 0134, line 4).
Further, Examiner also notes that in Formula 2-2, Jin is non-limiting with respect to the bond location between the phenyl group and the dibenzofuran moiety, nor is Jin limiting with respect to the bond locations between the dibenzofuran moieties and the amine nitrogen.
Given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make any positional isomer of compound N-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material in the hole transporting layer of the electroluminescent device of Jin and possess the properties taught by Jin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such modifications produce instant L63.
Jin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jin being a lack of the aforementioned bonding pattern being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any possible bonding position on the dibenzofuranyl moiety from the finite list of four possible bonding positions to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which achieves high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance in an organic electroluminescent device, and greatly improved color purity and lifespan (paragraph 0013), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2023/0125420 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Choi et al. (WO 2020/096326 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Jin teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Jin does not teach the use of the compound in an electron blocking layer.
In analogous art, Choi teaches an analogous arylamine compound for use in an electron blocking layer.
Choi is effective in demonstrating not only that it was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an arylamine in an electron blocking layer, but that doing so may result in an electron blocking layer wherein a progressive increase in driving voltage is suppressed and high luminous efficiency and low driving voltage characteristics are exhibited (paragraph 0039).
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 arylamine compound of Jin in an electron blocking layer in order to suppress a progressive increase in driving voltage and obtain an organic electroluminescent device with high luminous efficiency and low driving voltage characteristics, as taught by Choi.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 17/449,885 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Specifically,
The luminescence device of instant claim 1 is met by claim 1 of ‘885 in both structure and limitation. Instant partial formulae 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 are met by partial formulae 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 respectively of ‘885. The device structure is the same.
Instant claim 2 is met by claim 2 of ‘885 because both claims specify that the compound is in one of a hole injection layer or a hole transport layer.
Instant claims 3 is met by claim 3 of ‘885 because both claims require for the compound to be in an electron blocking layer.
Instant claims 4 through 7 are met by claims 4 through 7 of ‘885 because they all specify the same possible bonding positions between the central amine core and partial formula 2-1, along with possible substituents and combinations.
Instant claims 8 through 10 are met by claims 8 through 10 of ‘885 because they both specify specific bonding patterns of dibenzoheteroles and the central amine core.
The limitations of L1 and L2 of instant claim 11 is met by the limitations of the L groups of claim 11 of ‘885.
Instant claims 12-14 are met by claims 12-14 of ‘995 because they contain identical embodiments of the claimed invention.
The amine of claim 15 is met by the amine compound of claim 15 of ‘885 in both structure and limitation. Instant partial formulae 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 are met by partial formulae 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 respectively of ‘885.
Instant claims 16 through 18 are met by claims 16 through 18 of ‘885 because they all specify the same possible bonding positions between the central amine core and partial formula 2-1, along with possible substituents and combinations.
The amine compounds of instant claims 19 through 21 are met by the amine compounds of claims 19 through 21 of ‘885 because they contain identical embodiments of the claimed invention.
Thus, while the subject matter claimed in the instant application is not identical to the subject matter claimed in ‘885, there is a substantive overlap which obviates the claimed invention in light of ‘885.
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 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