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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (WO 2016/105123) (Bae).
In reference to claims 10-11 and 15-20, Bae teaches a compound of the formula 5 as shown below (Bae [0054])
PNG
media_image1.png
564
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein L1 is a single bond, Ar1 is a fluorenyl, Ar2, R3, and R4 is phenyl and teaches that groups R1 and R2 are each hydrogen (Bae [0017] to [0024]).
Bae discloses the compound that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein L1 is a single bond, Ar1 is a fluorenyl, Ar2, R3, and R4 is phenyl and teaches that groups R1 and R2 are each hydrogen. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Bae are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of R1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Bae and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 10: Reads on formula 1 wherein L1, L2 and L3 are each a single bond, R1 is a group of formula 5-11, R2 is a fluorenyl, R3 is a phenyl, R21 is phenyl, R22 is phenyl, R23 is hydrogen and R24 is phenyl.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula 1 wherein L1, L2 and L3 are each a single bond, R1 is a group of formula 5-11, R2 is a fluorenyl, R3 is a phenyl, R21 is phenyl, R22 is phenyl, R23 is hydrogen and R24 is phenyl.
For Claim 15: Reads on R21 is a phenyl.
For Claim 16: Reads on R22 is phenyl.
For Claim 17: Reads on R2 is fluorenyl.
For Claim 18: Reads on formula 6-1 wherein X is gem-dimethyl methylene.
For Claim 19: Reads on 7-3.
For Claim 20: Reads on a π-electron rich group (note the instant specification defines this to be “a cyclic group that has three to sixty carbon atoms and does not include *—N=*′ as a ring-forming moiety” and phenyl meets this definition).
In reference to claims 12-14, the claims further limit the groups of formula (2), which are optional embodiments of claim 10 (e.g. R2 is a group represented by Formula 2 or a C6-C60 condensed…) and therefore not required. As such, claims 12-14 are rejected based on similar reasons to claim 10.
In reference to claims 1-4 and 7, Bae teaches the compound as described above for claim 10 and further teaches that the compound is for use in an organic EL device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting auxiliary layer, a light emitting layer, a hole electron transport layer, an electron injection layer and a cathode (in that order) and specifically points to wherein a hole transport or a light emitting auxiliary layer includes the compound Bae teaches that the use of these compounds in a device improves efficiency, brightness, driving voltage and lifetime and that it can be incorporated into a full color display (Bae [0061] to [0062] [0078] to [0080]).
Given that Bae discloses the device that encompasses the presently claimed device structure, including the compound above as hole transport material, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device structure, which is both disclosed by Bae and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (WO 2016/105123) (Bae) in view of Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claim 8-9, Bae teaches the full color display device as described for claim 7.
Bae does not expressly teach that it the display device comprises the claimed features of a thin film transistor or a color filter etc. as instantly claimed. With respect to the difference, Song teaches, in analogous art, display devices with similar materials comprising thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes (Song [0132] to [0134]) and a color filter (Song [0143]).
It would have been obvious to use the device configuration of Song including well known elements such as thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes and a color filter with the expectation of providing an organic EL display device with improved color characteristics, efficiency and lifespan (Song abstract).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al (US 2008/0023724) (Takeda) in view of Bae et al (WO 2016/105123) (Bae).
In reference to claims 5-6, Takeda teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, an emitting layer and a capping layer on the second electrode that includes a triaryl amine derivative or a carbazole derivative (Takeda Abstract).
Takeda does not expressly teach that the triaryl amine derivative or a carbazole derivative is the instantly claimed materials.
With respect to the difference, Bae teaches a compound as shown below that is both a triarylamine and a carbazole (Bae [0104]) and further teaches that the use of these compounds in a device improves light emission performance, efficiency, driving voltage and lifetime (Bae [0080]).
PNG
media_image2.png
162
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the compound as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound as described by Bae in order to improve light emission performance, efficiency, driving voltage and lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the prior art of record. However, as pointed to above herein, the prior art still teaches the claimed invention. Applicant is claiming specific positional isomers or specific substituted derivatives of the materials set forth by Bae that are not exemplified therein. The selection of substituents or positional isomers within the taught genus of the prior art is considered prima facie obvious and expected to give rise to functional equivalents capable of performing the same function as those exemplified in the absence of unexpected results.
Further, Applicant argues that the limitations of claims 12-14 are not drawn to optional embodiments. However, this is not the case. These claims limit groups of formula 2, a group that is not required to be present in any of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights