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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The objections to claims 1-10 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/20/2026 is sufficient to overcome 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. The rejections are withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made over Ha et al. KR-20190044577-A and Wang et al. CN-110724062-A.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 33-35 of the reply dated 07/20/2026 with respect to 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 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the argument of unexpected results support by data in the specification and declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/20/2026 . The rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the formulae 12 and 13 that are of higher resolution do not match the original.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha et al. KR-20190044577-A (hereinafter "Ha-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Ha-MT").
It is noted that KR-20190044577-A cited on the IDS of 07/18/2022.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 11-15, Ha discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, at least one organic layer, and a cathode (Ha-MT, page 11 of 47, lines 16-18), wherein the organic layer comprises a hole transporting layer / electron blocking layer / light emitting layer / electron transporting layer (page 12 of 47, lines 5-6), and wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound represented by a formula (1) (Ha-MT, page 2 of 47, line and page 11 of 47, lines 11-12) as a host to a phosphorescent dopant (Ha-MT, page 13 of 47, lines 30-39). Ha further discloses wherein the hole transport layer and/or the electron blocking layer comprises the compound represented by a formula (1) (Ha-MT, page 13 of 47, lies 6-7 and 25-26), which is in support of the light emitting layer and thus corresponds to an emitting auxiliary layer. Ha discloses examples of the compound represented by formula (1) that meet the claimed formulae 1, 3, and 7 including compound
PNG
media_image1.png
165
118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ha-KR, page 58) wherein a plurality of R3 are bonded to each other to form a ring and plurality of R4 are bonded to each other to form a ring.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. CN-110724062-A referred to as "Wang-CN", and see machine translation referred to here as "Wang-MT".
It is noted that CN-110724062-A is cited on the IDS of 12/31/2025.
Regarding claims 1-14, Wang discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a fluorene-based compound in the hole transport layer, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (Wang-MT, page 2 of 9; page 6 of 9, lines 18-28). Wang discloses the organic electroluminescent device comprising the fluorene-based compound as the hole transport layer exhibits high efficiency and long service life (Wang-MT, page 4 of 9, lines 1-2). Wang discloses examples of the fluorene-based compound that meet the claimed formulae 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 14, 18, 23, and 24 wherein Ar1 is a group of claimed Formula 1-1 and 1-3 including compound 16
PNG
media_image2.png
187
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Wang-CN, page 8) and compound 64
PNG
media_image3.png
131
187
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Wang-CN, page 10).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. KR-20190044577-A (hereinafter "Ha-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Ha-MT") as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Yun US-20170125731-A1 (hereinafter "Yun").
Regarding claim 16, Ha discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 11.
Ha does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the device comprising a light efficiency enhancing layer formed on at least one surface of the anode and the cathode, the surface being opposite to the organic material layer.
Yun teaches a capping layer in an organic light-emitting device (Abstract) to improve a rate of extracting light emitted from the organic light-emitting device to increase the optical efficiency of the organic light-emitting display apparatus (¶ [0064]), wherein the capping layer is provided on an electrode (¶ [0064]).
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 modify the device of Ha to include a capping layer, based on the teaching of Yun. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve a rate of extracting light emitted from the organic light-emitting device to increase the optical efficiency of the organic light-emitting display apparatus, as taught by Yun.
The capping layer improves light extraction and therefore corresponds to the claimed light efficiency enhancing layer.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. KR-20190044577-A (hereinafter "Ha-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Ha-MT") as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereinafter "Hatwar").
Regarding claims 17-18, Ha discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 11.
Ha 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 Ha 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 Ha et al. KR-20190044577-A (hereinafter "Ha-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Ha-MT") as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Ono et al. US-20140138648-A1 (hereinafter "Ono").
Regarding claims 19-20, Ha discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 11.
Ha 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 Ha 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. CN-110724062-A referred to as "Wang-CN", and see machine translation referred to here as "Wang-MT", as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Wang does not specifically disclose a fluorene-based compound that corresponds to the one of the compounds recited in claim 10. For examples, the compound 16 of Wang differs from the claimed compound
PNG
media_image4.png
187
168
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in that the diphenyl-fluorenyl group possesses an additional phenyl substituent at the position corresponding to R6.
However, Wang teaches in the general formula of the fluorene-based compound R6 may be hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl, among others (Wang-MT, page 2 of 9, lines 12-15) and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the variable R6 is selected as hydrogen including for examples compounds 1 and 3 (Wang-CN, page 3).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Wang, 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 R6 phenyl group for hydrogen, because Wang teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such and teaches exemplary compounds wherein the variable is 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 the hole transport layer of the device of Wang and possess the beneficial properties of high efficiency and long service life taught by Wang. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. CN-110724062-A referred to as "Wang-CN", and see machine translation referred to here as "Wang-MT", as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Yun US-20170125731-A1 (hereinafter "Yun").
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 11.
Wang does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the device comprising a light efficiency enhancing layer formed on at least one surface of the anode and the cathode, the surface being opposite to the organic material layer.
Yun teaches a capping layer in an organic light-emitting device (Abstract) to improve a rate of extracting light emitted from the organic light-emitting device to increase the optical efficiency of the organic light-emitting display apparatus (¶ [0064]), wherein the capping layer is provided on an electrode (¶ [0064]).
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 modify the device of Wang to include a capping layer, based on the teaching of Yun. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve a rate of extracting light emitted from the organic light-emitting device to increase the optical efficiency of the organic light-emitting display apparatus, as taught by Yun.
The capping layer improves light extraction and therefore corresponds to the claimed light efficiency enhancing layer.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. CN-110724062-A referred to as "Wang-CN", and see machine translation referred to here as "Wang-MT", as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereinafter "Hatwar").
Regarding claims 17-18, Wang discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 11.
Wang 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 Wang 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 Wang et al. CN-110724062-A referred to as "Wang-CN", and see machine translation referred to here as "Wang-MT", as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Ono et al. US-20140138648-A1 (hereinafter "Ono").
Regarding claims 19-20, Wang discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 11.
Wang 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 Wang 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.
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
Prosecution Insights