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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/19/2025 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 15 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 09/15/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-20 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 is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito (US 2015/0318510 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 6-12, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta (US 2013/0150576 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 112-116 of the reply dated 09/19/2025 with respect to the rejections as set forth in the previous Office Action have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14-15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the proviso of claims 1 and 15, condition ii) recites “R6 of the R1 represented by Formula 2-1 or Formula 2-2”. However, R6 is only present in Formula 2-2. Thus for ease of reading, it is recommended to replace the phrase with “R6 of the R1 represented by
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 to 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 halogen atom, a substituted or unsubstituted silyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted boron group, a substituted or unsubstituted oxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted thio group, a substituted carbonyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 30 carbon atom, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms, or a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 2 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms; or ii) R6 of the R1 represented by Formula 2-1 or Formula 2-2 is a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group or heteroaryl 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 the full scope of at least one of R7 and R8 being a deuterium atom, a halogen atom, a substituted or unsubstituted silyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted boron group, a substituted or unsubstituted oxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted thio group, a substituted carbonyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 30 carbon atom, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms, or a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 2 to 60 ring-forming carbon atoms 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 the full scope of R6 being a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group or heteroaryl 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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yen (US 2021/0104679 A1).
Regarding claims 15-20, Yen teaches compound 10, which is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formulas 1 and 2-2 (pg. 8).
10:
PNG
media_image1.png
384
336
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 10 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
X is O;
R1 is an aryl group having 6 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 not required to be present;
R6 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms, and R7 and R8 are each hydrogen;
n6 is 0, n7 is 3, and n8 is 4; and
R4 and R5 are not required to be present.
Additionally, compound 10 reads on the claimed Formula 1-2 (claim 16); Formula 2-2-1 (claim 18); and compound B262 (claim 20).
As a group represented by Formula 2-1 is not required to be present, the limitations of claim 17 are met. As L1 and L2 are not required to be present, the limitations of claim 19 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 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (US 2021/0104679 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6-12, and 14, 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 10 (pg. 8).
Compound 10 reads on the claimed Formulas 1, 2-2, 1-2, 2-1-1, and 2-2-1, and compound B262 (claims 1, 6, 8, and 14) in the same way as described above with respect to claims 15-20. As a group represented by Formula 2-1 is not required to be present, the limitations of claim 7 are met. As L1 and L2 are not required to be present, the limitations of claim 9 are met. Additionally, R1 and R6 are each an unsubstituted phenyl, and R2 is an unsubstituted carbazole group represented by Formula 2-2, and R3, 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.
Regarding claims 2-3, Yen teaches an organic EL device including compound 10, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Yen fails to teach a specific device wherein compound 10 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 10 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 10, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Yen fails to teach a specific device wherein compound 10 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 10 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.
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