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 statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on03/07/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 04/30/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of
claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (JP 2004/273190 A), Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202275 A1), and Seo et al. (WO 2020/109927 A1),
claim 3 as being unpatentable over Kita, Ogasawara, and Seo above, and further in view of Igarashi et al. (US 2001/0008711 A1),
claims 14-18 and 20 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (JP 2004/273190 A) and Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202275 A1), and of
claims 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2015/0105201 A) and Chung et al. (US 2017/0047526 A1), and further in view of Ogasawara et al. (US 2005/0202275 A1),
are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-20 are originally filed.
Claims 1, 5, 11-15, and 17-20 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0336937 A1) in view of Cai et al. (CN 109928962 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claims 1, 4-8, and 10, Lee discloses an organic luminescence device comprising a first electrode (an anode, paragraph 0145), a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode (a cathode, paragraph 0146), and the hole transport region comprises a compound of Formula 1 (paragraph 0142, lines 1-10), such as compound 49 (page 23), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Lee Formula 1A when X1 is oxygen (paragraph 0012), and R2 is represented by Formula 4-4 (page 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
136
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee also teaches that in Formula 1A, R2 is represented by Formula 5-1, which is pictured below, b11 and b12 are 1 (paragraph 0017) and R11 and R12 are a C12 aryl group (paragraph 0070, lines 1-10). In Formula 5-1, e3 is 3 and e4 is 4 (paragraphs 0104 and 0105), Z31 and Z32 are hydrogen atoms (paragraph 0101, lines 1-2), and Y31 is an oxygen atom (paragraph 0100).
PNG
media_image4.png
206
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms comprising oxygen (dibenzofuran), L is a direct linkage, ring A is an unsubstituted heteroaryl ring of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (dibenzofuran), a and b are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, and Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 2.
In Formula 2, Y is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and ring B is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene).
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which, when used in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device, results in a device which has improved consumption power, efficiency, luminance, and lifetime characteristics (paragraph 0141), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Lee does not teach nor fairly suggest selection of the instantly claimed o-biphenyl moiety of Formula 2.
In analogous art, Cai teaches a carbazole compound for use in the hole transport layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0060 and general formula (1) on page 16 of the untranslated document).
Cai teaches that the described carbazole compound uses a carbazole core which connects to rigid groups that are able to destroy the crystallinity of the molecule, avoid intermolecular aggregation, and which have high glass transition temperature. Cai teaches that when this type of material is used in OLED devices, high film stability is maintained, and the service life of OLED device is improved (paragraph 0063).
Cai gives examples of a suitable rigid substituent for the carbazole core which is able to accomplish the objective, which includes symmetrical o-biphenyl substituents (e.g., compounds 11, 16, 19, etc., page 17).
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 incorporate two o-biphenyl substituents on the carbazole core of the compound of Lee in order to destroy the crystallinity of the molecule, avoid intermolecular aggregation, and give high glass transition temperature, so that the compound may be used in an organic layer of an OLED device with high film stability, resulting in improved service life of the OLED device, as taught by Cai.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Lee and Cai teach the device of claim 1, and Lee also teaches that the device comprises a hole transport region comprising at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer (paragraph 0147), and the compound may be comprised anywhere in the hole transport region (paragraph 0142, liens 1-6).
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 incorporate the compound of Formula 1 into any layer of the hole transport region, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 9, Lee and Cai teach the device of claim 1, and Formula 1 is represented by Formula 5 when two R5 are joined to form a dibenzofuran ring, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, Lee and Cai teach the device of claim 9, as discussed above.
Lee also teaches that R2 is represented by Formula 5-6 (paragraph 0098 and page 14) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
184
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In this formula, each of e4 is 4 and Z31 and Z32 are hydrogen atoms (paragraphs 0101 and 0105).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 6-1 when c is 0 and R3 is not present, n is 0 and R6 and f are not present, e is 2 and two of R5 are joined to form a dibenzofuran ring, a and b are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, and Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 2.
In Formula 2, Y is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and ring B is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene).
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which, when used in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device, results in a device which has improved consumption power, efficiency, luminance, and lifetime characteristics (paragraph 0141), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 12, Lee and Cai teach the device of claim 9, and Formula 5 is represented by Formula 6-2 when n is 0 and R6 and f are not present, d is 0 and R4 is not present, X2 is an oxygen atom, and e is 2 and two of R5 are joined to form a ring, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 13, Lee and Cai teach the device of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 1 is instant compound 99.
With respect to claims 14 through 16, Lee discloses compound 49 (page 23), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Lee formula 1A when X1 is oxygen (paragraph 0012), and R2 is represented by Formula 4-4 (page 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
136
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee also teaches that in Formula 1A, R2 is represented by Formula 5-1, which is pictured below, b11 and b12 are 1 (paragraph 0017) and R11 and R12 are a C12 aryl group (paragraph 0070, lines 1-10). In Formula 5-1, e3 is 3 and e4 is 4 (paragraphs 0104 and 0105), Z31 and Z32 are hydrogen atoms (paragraph 0101, lines 1-2), and Y31 is an oxygen atom (paragraph 0100).
PNG
media_image4.png
206
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is a heteroaryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms comprising oxygen (dibenzofuran), L is a direct linkage, ring A is an unsubstituted heteroaryl ring of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (dibenzofuran), a and b are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, and Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 2.
In Formula 2, Y is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and ring B is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene).
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which, when used in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device, results in a device which has improved consumption power, efficiency, luminance, and lifetime characteristics (paragraph 0141), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Lee does not teach nor fairly suggest selection of the instantly claimed o-biphenyl moiety of Formula 2.
In analogous art, Cai teaches a carbazole compound for use in the hole transport layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0060 and general formula (1) on page 16 of the untranslated document).
Cai teaches that the described carbazole compound uses a carbazole core which connects to rigid groups that are able to destroy the crystallinity of the molecule, avoid intermolecular aggregation, and which have high glass transition temperature. Cai teaches that when this type of material is used in OLED devices, high film stability is maintained, and the service life of OLED device is improved (paragraph 0063).
Cai gives examples of a suitable rigid substituent for the carbazole core which is able to accomplish the objective, which includes symmetrical o-biphenyl substituents (e.g., compounds 11, 16, 19, etc., page 17).
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 incorporate two o-biphenyl substituents on the carbazole core of the compound of Lee in order to destroy the crystallinity of the molecule, avoid intermolecular aggregation, and give high glass transition temperature, so that the compound may be used in an organic layer of an OLED device with high film stability, resulting in improved service life of the OLED device, as taught by Cai.
With respect to claim 17, Lee and Cai teach the compound of claim 14, and Formula 1 is represented by Formula 5 when e is 2 and two of R5 are joined to form a ring, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 18, Lee and Cai teach the compound of claim 17, as discussed above.
Lee also teaches that R2 is represented by Formula 5-6 (paragraph 0098 and page 14) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
184
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In this formula, e4 is 4 and Z31 and Z32 are hydrogen atoms (paragraphs 0101 and 0105).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 6-1 when c is 0 and R3 is not present, n is 0 and R6 and f are not present, e is 2 and two of R5 are joined to form a dibenzofuran ring, a and b are 0 and R1 and R2 are not present, and Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 2.
In Formula 2, Y is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and ring B is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene).
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which, when used in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device, results in a device which has improved consumption power, efficiency, luminance, and lifetime characteristics (paragraph 0141), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 19, Lee and Cai teach the compound of claim 17, and Formula 5 is represented by Formula 6-2 when n is 0 and R6 and f are not present, d is 0 and R4 is not present, X2 is an oxygen atom, and e is 2 and two of R5 are joined to form a ring, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 20, Lee and Cai teach the compound of claim 14, and the compound is represented by instant compound 99.
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.
/R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights