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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5-11, and 17-18 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The objection to the abstract as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The objections to claims 1, 5-9, 11, and 17-18 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 10 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.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 11-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baek et al. KR-20170138799-A as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn due to the applicant's arguments.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 10-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US-20230009845-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's statement of common ownership under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. KR-20170138799-A, the rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. KR-20170138799-A as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1, and the rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. KR-20170138799-A as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Ono et al. US-20140138648-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 10-14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,671 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the terminal disclaimer filed and approved on 12/31/2025.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 22-23 of the reply dated 12/31/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 11-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baek et al. KR-20170138799-A as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the claimed proviso that R5 and R8 are not bonded to each other to form a bond. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments on pages 23-27 of the reply dated 12/31/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 24 that "[w]hile Baek Compound 17 and inventive Compound P2-11 can be positional isomers, the specific position of the amino group on the diphenyl fluorene core is not a routine or trivial modification in OLED chemistry and the position critically influences the electronic properties, charge transport and device performance.
Examiner's response – As discussed in the previous Office action, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II. One of ordinary skill would expect the isomeric compounds of Compound 17 to be useful in the organic thing film layer of the device of Baek and would expect the isomeric compounds to possess the properties of suitable energy level, electrochemical stability, and thermal stability, taught by Baek.
Applicant's argument -- The applicant argues on pages 24-26 of the reply that the data in the reply and the specification demonstrate that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art Baek. The applicant argues that OLEDs with Baek's Compound 12 and 17 were fabricated according to the same method as described in Example 52 of the specification and evaluated the same way as described for the claimed compounds.
Specifically, the applicant argues that the data demonstrates that the OLEDs employing the claimed compound (P1-1, P1-4, P1-5 and P2-11), where the amino group is linked to one phenyl substituent on the fluorenyl ring, showed remarkably increased lifetime, increased efficiency, and lowered driving voltage, compared to the Baek compounds (Compound 12, Compound 17), where the amino group is linked to one phenyl moiety of the fluorenyl ring and argues that these improved effects are not predicted from the prior art of record.
Examiner's response – Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP § 716.01(c).
Because the new data of OLEDs with Baek's Compound 12 and 17 shown in the table on page 26 and described on pages 24-26 in the reply does not appear to be presented in the original filing, it must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be considered in determining the issue of obviousness. However, there does not appear to be an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed. Therefore, the applicant's arguments are based on data that is not supported by the specification or an appropriate affidavit or declaration and are found not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 26-27 that the secondary references Hatwar and Ono do not remedy the alleged deficiencies of Baek and therefore neither renders the claimed invention obvious.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to these references and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structure formulae are of poor resolution.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. KR-20170138799-A (hereinafter "Baek-KR" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Baek-MT").
Regarding claims 1-16, Baek teaches a compound of a formula (a) (Baek-Mt, page 2 of 28, lines 13-14)
PNG
media_image1.png
136
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Baek-KR, page 14) and discloses at least one organic thin film layer is sandwiched between a cathode and an anode, wherein the organic thin film layer has a multilayer structure including at least one light emitting layer, and at least one layer includes the organic compound (Baek-Mt, page 3 of 18, lines 21-24), wherein the organic thing film layer may be a hole transporting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron blocking layer (Baek-MT, page 4 of 18, lines 1-3), and wherein the luminescent material may be phosphorescent (Baek-MT, page 1 of 18, lines 17-18). Baek discloses wherein a capping layer (CPL) is further provided on the opposite side of the surface where the organic thin film layer is in contact with the cathode, and the capping layer further includes the organic compound (Baek-Mt, page 4 of 18, lines 14-17). Baek teaches when the organic compound is used as a material for an organic electroluminescence device, it can satisfactorily satisfy conditions required for a material usable in an organic electroluminescence device, for example, suitable energy level, electrochemical stability and thermal stability (Baek-Mt, page 3 of 18, lines 18-20). Baek discloses specific examples of the compound of formula (a) including compound 12
PNG
media_image2.png
121
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Baek-KR, page 18) and compound 17
PNG
media_image3.png
103
133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Baek-KR, page 18).
Baek does not exemplify a compound as recited in claim 10. However, Compound 17
PNG
media_image3.png
103
133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 18) is positional isomer of claimed P2-11.
Given the general formula and teachings of Baek, 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 Compound 17 wherein the amine nitrogen is bonded to the diphenylfluorenyl to arrive at the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
196
110
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by formula (a) in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in an organic thing film layer of the device of Baek and possess the properties taught by Baek. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Baek does not exemplify a compound as discussed above wherein one of the positions corresponds to the claimed Ar1 and Ar2 is a substituent of the claimed Formula 1-1. However, Baek teaches that the positions Ar1 to Ar3 may include
PNG
media_image5.png
182
267
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Baek-KR, page 17 and Baek-MT, page 2 of 18, lines 36-37), among others.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Baek, 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 the biphenyl group in one of the positions corresponds to Ar1 and Ar2 in the formula (a) of Baek for one of
PNG
media_image6.png
182
253
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, because Baek teaches the variable may suitable 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 an organic thin film layer of the device of Baek and possess the benefits as described above taught by Baek. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The device comprising the modified compound of Baek meet claims 1-16.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. KR-20170138799-A (hereinafter "Baek-KR" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Baek-MT") as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereinafter "Hatwar").
Regarding claims 17-18, Baek teaches the device comprising the modified compound as described above with respect to claim 11.
Baek does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the organic material layer comprises two or more stacks comprising a hole transport layer, an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer sequentially formed on the anode and a charge generation layer formed between two or more stacks.
In the analogous art of OLEDs, Hatwar teaches an organic light-emitting device (see Figure 1 and [0098]) comprising a first electrode (“anode 110”), a second electrode (“cathode 170”), a plurality of light-emitting units in the number of m disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (“N EL units”) comprising at least one emission layer (¶ [0092]), and a plurality of charge generation layers in the number of m-1 disposed between two neighboring light-emitting units (“N-1 intermediate connector regions”) wherein m is an integer of 2 or more (“N is an integer greater than 1” – see [0098]). Hatwar suggests that many different energy transfer processes can occur inside the emission layers (EMLs) of the light-emitting units and that the layer may be fluorescent or phosphorescent or a combination of both (¶ [0092]). Hatwar also suggests that the colors of the emission layers may be selected so as to obtain the desired properties. For example, Hatwar suggests that a white OLED can be achieved by including blue light emitting layers in combination with red and green emitting layers (¶ [0100]-[0101]).
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 form a white OLED comprising the organic EL device of Baek such that it includes the stacked emission layer structure including light-emitting units of different colors and connector regions disclosed by Hatwar wherein a maximum emission wavelength of light emitted by one light-emitting unit is different from the maximum emission wavelength of light emitted by the other light emitting unit, based on the teaching of Hatwar. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the desired white light emission as taught by Hatwar.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. KR-20170138799-A (hereinafter "Baek-KR" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Baek-MT") as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Ono et al. US-20140138648-A1 (hereinafter "Ono").
Regarding claims 19-20, Baek teaches the device comprising the modified compound as described above with respect to claim 11.
Baek does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the device further comprises a control unit for driving the display device and where the device is at least one of an OLED, an organic solar cell, an organic photo conductor (OPC), an organic transistor (organic TFT), and an element for monochromic or white illumination.
Ono a display device, including a display unit and a control unit wherein the display unit has a plurality of segments and each of the plurality of segments includes a plurality of organic light emitting layers to emit light of mutually different colors, and wherein the control unit drives each of the plurality of segments of the display unit to emit light (¶ [0015]). Ono teaches the display units controlled by the control unit may display the same image or may display different images (¶ [0194]).
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 incorporate the organic light emitting element of Baek into the device of Ono, based on the teaching of Ono. The motivation for doing so would have been to form a display device that may display the same image or may display different images, as taught by Ono.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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