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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 14-15, and 20 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 04/21/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claims 1 and 15 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 04/21/2026.
The objection to claims 14 and 20 as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 04/21/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/21/2026. The rejection is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language.
The rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yen (US 2021/0104679 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/21/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/21/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen in view of Lee (US 2015/02123086 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/21/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 112-115 of the reply dated 04/21/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On page 112, Applicant argues the claims have been amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in the previous office action.
Examiner's response –For the reasons discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the amended claims are not sufficiently supported by the instant specification and are still considered to have new matter.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended.
Examiner's response –For the reasons discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14 and 20 recite blurry compound structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the proviso that when R1 is represented by Formula 2-1 and L1 is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms, or R1 is represented by Formula 2-2, and L2 is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms, then i) at least one of R4, R5, R7, and R8 of the R1 represented by Formula 2-1 or Formula 2-2 are each independently selected from a deuterium atom, a fluorine atom, an unsubstituted or substituted phenyl group, an unsubstituted or substituted carbazole group, an unsubstituted or substituted dibenzothiophene group, an unsubstituted or substituted dibenzofuran group, an unsubstituted or substituted phenoxazine group, an unsubstituted or substituted acridine group, an unsubstituted or substituted naphthyl group, or a SiPh3 group; or ii) R6 of the R1 represented by Formula 2-2 is an unsubstituted or substituted phenyl group, an unsubstituted or substituted naphthyl group, an unsubstituted or substituted dibenzothiophene group, an unsubstituted or substituted dibenzofuran group, a SiPh3 group, or an unsubstituted or substituted carbazole group, excluding when R6 is an unsubstituted phenyl group.
The instant specification recites that if the compound represented by Formula 1 contains a substituent represented by Formula 2-1, and L1 is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms, then at least one among R4 and R5 is a substituent that is not a hydrogen atom (instant ¶ [0126]). However, the instant specification does not recite such conditions for when the compound represented by Formula 1 contains a substituent represented by Formula 2-2 and L2 is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms.
The instant compounds A62 to A65, A67, A70 to A73, and A75 provide support for wherein when R1 is represented by Formula 2-2, and L2 is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms, then i) at least one of R7 and R8 of the R1 represented by Formula 2-2 is selected from unsubstituted or substituted phenyl, unsubstituted or substituted carbazole, and a SiPh3 group; or ii) R6 of the R1 represented by Formula 2-2 is an unsubstituted or substituted phenyl, unsubstituted dibenzothiophene, unsubstituted dibenzofuran, unsubstituted naphthalene, unsubstituted terphenyl, SiPh3, and unsubstituted or substituted carbazole (see instant pages 48-50).
Accordingly, for condition i) of the proviso, while there is support for wherein at least one of R7 and R8 of the R1 represented by Formula 2-2 is selected from unsubstituted or substituted phenyl, unsubstituted substituted carbazole, and a SiPh3 group, there is not sufficient support for at least one of R7 and R8 being a deuterium atom, a fluorine atom, an unsubstituted or substituted dibenzothiophene group, an unsubstituted or substituted dibenzofuran group, an unsubstituted or substituted phenoxazine group, an unsubstituted or substituted acridine group, or an unsubstituted or substituted naphthyl group when R1 is represented by Formula 2-2 and L2 is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms.
Similarly, for condition ii) of the proviso, while there is support for wherein R6 of the R1 represented by Formula 2-2 is an unsubstituted or substituted phenyl, unsubstituted dibenzothiophene, unsubstituted dibenzofuran, unsubstituted naphthalene, unsubstituted terphenyl, SiPh3, and unsubstituted or substituted carbazole, there is not sufficient support for R6 being a substituted naphthyl group, a substituted dibenzothiophene group, a substituted dibenzofuran group, excluding when R6 is an unsubstituted phenyl group, when R1 is represented by Formula 2-2 and L2 is a substituted or unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms.
For this reason, claims 1 and 15 are considered to have new matter. Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are rejected for their dependency upon claims 1 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yen (US 2021/0104679 A1).
Regarding claims 15-18, Yen teaches compound 88, which is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formulas 1 and 2-2 (pg. 26).
88:
PNG
media_image1.png
464
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
181
335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula 2-2:
PNG
media_image3.png
205
358
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 88 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
X is O;
R1 is a substituted heteroaryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms, and R2 is a substituent represented by Formula 2-2, and R3 is hydrogen;
n1 is 1 and n2 is 4;
L2 is an unsubstituted heteroarylene group having 14 ring-forming carbon atoms;
R6 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms, and R7 and R8 are each hydrogen;
n6 is 1, n7 is 3, and n8 is 4; and
R4 and R5 are not required to be present.
Additionally, compound 88 reads on the claimed Formula 1-2 (claim 16) and Formula 2-2-1 (claim 18).
As a group represented by Formula 2-1 is not required to be present, the limitations of claim 17 are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (US 2021/0104679 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, and 10-11, Yen teaches an organic EL device having improved driving voltage, current efficiency, or half-life by comprising an anode, a cathode, and one or more organic layers disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one of the organic layers comprises an organic compound of formula (1) (abstract; ¶ [0005] and [0009]). Specifically, Yen teaches the device includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0083]). Examples of the organic compound of formula (1) include compound 88 (pg. 26).
Compound 88 reads on the claimed Formulas 1, 2-2, 1-2, and 2-2-1 (claims 1, 6, 8) in the same way as described above with respect to claims 15-18. As a group represented by Formula 2-1 is not required to be present, the limitations of claim 7 are met. Additionally, R1 is a substituted carbazole, R2 is an unsubstituted carbazole group represented by Formula 2-2, R6 is an unsubstituted phenyl, and R3, R7, and R8 are each hydrogen thus the limitations of claim 10 is met. As R1 is not required to be represented by Formula 2-1 or 2-2, the limitation of claim 11 is met.
Regarding claims 2-3, Yen teaches an organic EL device including compound 88, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Yen fails to teach a specific device wherein compound 88 is provided in a hole transport layer. However, as discussed above, Yen teaches the device includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0083]). Additionally, Yen teaches the hole transport layer may comprise the organic compound of formula (1) (¶ [0068]).
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 use compound 88 in the hole transport layer of a device having the structure of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Yen according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with improved driving voltage, current efficiency, or half-life, as taught by Yen. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claims 4-5, Yen teaches an organic EL device including compound 88, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Yen fails to teach a specific device wherein compound 88 is provided in as a host compound in an emissive layer. However, as discussed above, Yen teaches the device includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0083]). Additionally, Yen teaches the emissive layer may include a dopant and the organic compound of formula (1) as a host (¶ [0067] and [0084]).
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 use compound 88 as a host in the emissive layer of a device having the structure of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer further including a dopant, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Yen according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with improved driving voltage, current efficiency, or half-life, as taught by Yen. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (US 2021/0104679 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2015/0123086 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yen teaches the device of claim 1, as described above.
Yen fails to teach the device includes a capping layer.
Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode including a capping layer on the second electrode, wherein the capping layer includes a first surface and a second surface and has a gradient of refractive index that varies along a thickness direction from the first surface toward the second surface (abstract and ¶ [0074]). The first surface has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.8 and the second surface may have a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7 (¶ [0013]). Providing such a capping layer on an organic light emitting diode improves light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics (¶ [0029]).
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 provide Lee’s capping layer on the cathode of the device of Yen to improve light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics, as taught by Lee.
As the second surface of the capping layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7, the capping layer has a refractive index within the claimed range.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama (English translation of JP 2013093431 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1, 6-12, and 15-19, Oshiyama teaches an organic electroluminescent element having high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage, high durability, and excellent temporal stability by including a compound represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0014] and [0031]-[0032]). The organic electroluminescent element comprises an anode, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode (¶ [0137]). Examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) include compound 103 (pg. 22).
(1):
PNG
media_image4.png
165
327
media_image4.png
Greyscale
103:
PNG
media_image5.png
102
267
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound 103 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it does not include a nitrogen in the location of X1. However, Oshiyama does teach in general formula (1), X1 and X2 may each be an oxygen atom, a sulfur atom, or NR (¶ [0032]). Additionally, Oshiyama teaches compound 135 as an example of a compound represented by general formula (1) wherein X1 is N-phenyl and X2 is an oxygen atom (pg. 25).
135:
PNG
media_image6.png
184
226
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Oshiyama, 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 S with N-phenyl in the location of X1 and to substitute S with O in the location of X2, as shown in Oshiyama’s compound 135, because Oshiyama teaches X1 and X2 may each suitably be selected as O, S, and NR. 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 device of Oshiyama and possess the benefits taught by Oshiyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 103 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified 103:
PNG
media_image7.png
243
577
media_image7.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image2.png
181
335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2-2:
PNG
media_image3.png
205
358
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 103 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
X is O;
R1 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), R2 is hydrogen, and R3 is a substituent represented by Formula 2-2;
n1 is 4 and n2 is 1;
L2 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms;
R6 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), and R7 and R8 are each hydrogen;
n6 is 1, n7 is 3, and n8 is 4; and
R4 and R5 are not required to be present.
Additionally, the modified compound 103 reads on the claimed Formula 1-3 (claims 6 and 16), Formula 2-2-1 (claims 8 and 18), and Formula 3-2 (claims 9 and 19). R1 and R6 are each an unsubstituted phenyl, R3 is an unsubstituted carbazole group represented by Formula 2-2, and R2, R7, and R8 are each hydrogen thus the limitations of claims 10 and 12 are met. As R1 is not required to be represented by Formula 2-1 or 2-2, the limitation of claim 11 is met.
As a group represented by Formula 2-1 is not required to be present, the limitations of claims 7 and 17 are met.
Regarding claims 2-3, Oshiyama teaches an organic electroluminescent element including the modified compound 103, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Oshiyama fails to teach a specific device wherein the modified compound 103 is provided in a hole transport layer. However, Oshiyama teaches the compound represented by general formula (1) may be provided in the hole transport layer (¶ [0082]).
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 use the modified compound 103 in the hole transport layer of the device of Oshiyama, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Oshiyama according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage, high durability, and excellent temporal stability, as taught by Oshiyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claims 4-5, Oshiyama teaches an organic electroluminescent element including the modified compound 103, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Oshiyama fails to teach a specific device wherein the modified compound 103 is provided in as a host compound in an emissive layer. However, Oshiyama teaches the compound represented by general formula (1) may be provided as a host in the light-emitting layer, wherein the light-emitting layer further contains a dopant (¶ [0082] and [0085]).
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 use the modified compound 103 as a host in the light-emitting layer of Oshiyama’s device, wherein the light-emitting layer further contains a dopant, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Oshiyama according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage, high durability, and excellent temporal stability, as taught by Oshiyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Oshiyama teaches the modified compound 103, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 15.
(1):
PNG
media_image4.png
165
327
media_image4.png
Greyscale
modified 103:
PNG
media_image7.png
243
577
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 103 fails to read on a claimed compound. However, in general formula (1), Oshiyama teaches each of A1 to A8 represents C-Ra or a nitrogen atom, wherein Ra may represent a hydrogen atom or a substituent (¶ [0032]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Oshiyama, 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 the modified compound 103 wherein the phenyl-carbazole substituent is attached to A7 rather than A5, and wherein the carbazole group is attached to the phenyl linking group in the para position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Oshiyama’s general formula (1) in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the device of Oshiyama and possess the properties taught by Oshiyama. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified compound 103 reads on the claimed compound C241 (claims 14 and 20).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiyama (English translation of JP 2013093431 A obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2015/0123086 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Oshiyama teaches the device of claim 1, as described above.
Oshiyama fails to teach the device includes a capping layer.
Lee teaches an organic light emitting diode including a capping layer on the second electrode, wherein the capping layer includes a first surface and a second surface and has a gradient of refractive index that varies along a thickness direction from the first surface toward the second surface (abstract and ¶ [0074]). The first surface has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.8 and the second surface may have a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7 (¶ [0013]). Providing such a capping layer on an organic light emitting diode improves light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics (¶ [0029]).
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 provide Lee’s capping layer on the cathode of the device of Oshiyama to improve light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics, as taught by Lee.
As the second surface of the capping layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7, the capping layer has a refractive index within the claimed range.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights