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.
Election/Restrictions
The applicant's election with traverse of species (A) X and Y are each independently CR''R''' or NR' and species (D) all of X1 to X18 are C or CR1 in the reply filed on 04/22/2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-31 read on the elected species.
Claims 3 and 12 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The applicant timely traversed the election requirement in the reply filed on 04/22/2025.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13-19, 21-23 and 26 amended and claims 27-31 are new due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-31 are pending and claims 3 and 12 are withdrawn.
The objection to the specification and the abstract as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The objection to claims 1, 14, and 26 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejections of claims 2-7, 9, 11, 13-19, and 21-23 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 set forth in the previous Office action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 10/28/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. US-20190181349-A1 in view of Pflumm et al. US-20160190447-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action for the reasons discussed below.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. US-20190181349-A1 in view of Pflumm et al. US-20160190447-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language due to the applicant's amendment and maintained.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 105-112 of the reply dated 10/28/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. US-20190181349-A1 in view of Pflumm et al. US-20160190447-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 pages 105-112 of the reply that the data in the specification and the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 10/28/2025 (hereinafter "the declaration") demonstrate that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. Specifically, the applicant argues that the cited data shows that the combination of the first compound and the second compound as claimed is superior to the combination of the first compound as claimed with a compound falling outside the claimed scope and the combination of the second compound as claimed with a compound falling outside the claimed scope. Further, the applicant argues that neither Xia nor Pflumm discloses the specific combination of the first compound and the second compound as claimed and a person skilled in the art could not have expected the technical effect could be achieved by combining the first compound and the second compound.
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.
The cited data appear to be insufficient to overcome the rejection for at least the following reasons.
First, based on the teaches of Pflumm, it appears that the improvement in device performance is in fact expected. Pflumm teaches that when Pflumm's compound is employed in an organic electroluminescent device, it results in high efficiencies and low operating voltages (¶ [0120]), and the compounds has high stability (¶ [0121]-[0122]), therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that incorporating the compound of Pflumm into the device of Xia would result in a device with high efficiency and low operating voltage, with high stability.
Second, the results are not commensurate in scope with what is claimed and taught by the prior art Pflumm. The data in the specification and the declaration shows only examples of claimed devices wherein the second compound is either II-7 or II-130 (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
199
199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
202
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Pflumm teaches a compound of a formula (1) and teaches numerous exemplary compounds that meet the claimed Formula 2 in paragraph [0079], including, for example
PNG
media_image3.png
235
247
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 14) and compound (31)
PNG
media_image4.png
289
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 23), and compound 48
PNG
media_image5.png
332
308
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 28), and compound 153
PNG
media_image6.png
312
284
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 60). It is unclear that the same degree of difference in device performance would be observed in the case for the full scope of the second compound that is taught by Pflumm, for example, wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are groups that are more or less bulky than the biphenyl and fluorenyl groups of compounds II-7 and II-130, wherein Ar1 and Ar2 include a heteroaryl group, and/or wherein L3 is an aryl group instead of a single bond.
Third, comparison has not been made between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art. There are no examples of claimed devices and comparative examples that differ by only the substitution of C for N at the positions corresponding to X1 and X4 in Xia's Formula 1, the modification discussed in the rejection of record. In new Comparative Example I-7, the compound PD-3 (see below) is used as the second compound and this is compared to the Example 1-1 comprising compound 70 (see below) as the claimed second compound. However, compound PD-3 differs from compound 70 by much more than only the substitution of C for N.
PNG
media_image7.png
146
335
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
234
191
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is unclear to what degree the differences in device performance in new Comparative Examples I-7 is due to the proposed substitution of C for N and to what degree the difference is due to the other differing structural features.
For at least the reasons 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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. US-20190181349-A1 (hereinafter "Xia") in view of Pflumm et al. US-20160190447-A1 (hereinafter "Pflumm").
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13-31, Xia teaches light-emitting device is also disclosed, which comprises an anode, a cathode, and organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound having a Formula 1 (¶ [0018]) in a hole injection layer (¶ [0032], ¶ [0100]), adjacent the anode (¶ [0037]), and wherein the device further comprises a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, and a light emitting layer between the hole injection layer and the cathode (¶ [0103]). Xia teaches exemplary devices wherein the hole injection layer is 10 nm and a hole transport layer is 20 nm (¶ [0153]). The device displays light and in therefore part of a display assembly. Xia teaches the device comprising the compound having improved voltage, efficiency and/or lifetime (Abstract, ¶ [0010]). Xia teaches examples of the compound of Formula 1 in paragraph [0088] including, for example,
PNG
media_image9.png
424
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(page 9).
Xia does not specifically disclose a compound of the claimed Formula 1. For example, the compounds shown above differ from the claimed compound in that the position corresponding to X1 and X4 in Xia's Formula 1 are each C instead of N. However, X1 and X4 in Xia's Formula 1 are defined as CR or N (¶ [0013]), and Xia teaches the compound may have the formula
PNG
media_image10.png
166
335
media_image10.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image11.png
170
343
media_image11.png
Greyscale
among others (¶ [0083]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Xia, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute C for N at the positions corresponding to X1 and X4 in Xia's Formula 1 in the compounds of Xia, because Xia teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the hole injection layer of the device of Xia and possess the properties of improved voltage, efficiency and/or lifetime as described above taught by Xia. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compounds of Xia are each a compound of the claimed Formula 1.
Xia does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above further comprising a second compound of the claimed Formula 2. However, Xia teaches that the hole injection layer may further comprise an arylamine compound (¶ [0102]).
Pflumm teaches an arylamine compound of a formula (1) for use in the hole-injection layer of an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0095]-[0096] and ¶ [0006]). Pflumm teaches examples of the compound of Pflumm's formula (1) that meet the claimed Formula 2 in paragraph [0079], including, for example
PNG
media_image3.png
235
247
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 14), which corresponds to the claimed Il-1. Pflumm teaches that when the compound is employed in an organic electroluminescent device, it results in high efficiencies and low operating voltages (¶ [0120]), and Pflumm teaches that the compounds have high stability (¶ [0121]-[0122]).
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 further include the compound of Pflumm in the hole injection layer of the device of Xia, based on the teaching of Pflumm. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with high efficiency and low operating voltage using a compound with high stability, as taught by Pflumm.
The compound of Pflumm is a compound of the claimed Formula 2.
The modified device of Xia in view of Pflumm meets claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13-26.
Regarding claim 4, Xia in view of Pflumm teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Xia appears silent with respect to the property of wherein a Hammett constant of the electron withdrawing group(s) is greater than or equal to 0.05.
The instant specification recites that the electron withdrawing group of the present disclosure has a Hammett constant greater than or equal to 0.05 (see specification paragraph [0069]). Since Xia teaches the modified compound as discussed above comprising electron withdrawing groups specifically disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein a Hammett constant of the electron withdrawing group is greater than or equal to 0.05 is considered to be inherent and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: TAKIMIYA et al. in JP-2009242339-A disclose compounds of a formula
PNG
media_image12.png
132
224
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(page 2) including
PNG
media_image13.png
113
189
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(page 26).
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.
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