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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, and 16 are amended and claims 2-4 and 13-14 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1, 5-12, and 15-16 are pending.
The objections and rejections of claims 2-4 and 13-14 as set forth in the previous Office action are each moot because the claims are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
The objection to the abstract as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The objections to the claims 1, 7, and 16 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The objection to the claim 5 as set forth in the previous Office action is maintained.
The rejection of claims 9-11 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 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made over Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A, which is cited on the IDS of 08/03/2022.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 18-22 of the reply dated 12/26/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 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 pages 18-22 that each of the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment dated 12/26/2025.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of a compound represented by Formula (3) and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below made over Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A, which is cited on the IDS of 08/03/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, on lines 13-14, it is suggested that "R2s, a plurality of R3s, and a plurality of R4s is bonded to each other to form a ring" be changed to "R2s, a plurality of R3s, and a plurality of R4s are bonded to each other to form a ring" for ease of reading;
in claim 5, it is suggested that the numbers listed, e.g. "1)", "2)", "3)", "4)", and "5)", be deleted from the claim for ease of reading; and
in claims 9-11, it is suggested that "the compound" in each instance be changed to "at least one of the single compound or two or more compounds represented by Formula (3)" for ease of reading.
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, 5, 7-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A (hereinafter "Osaka-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Osaka-MT").
It is noted that KR-20120014913-A is cited on the IDS of 08/03/2022.
Regarding claims 1, 7-11, and 15-16, Osaka taches a light emitting device comprising a fluorene derivative of a Formula G1 (page 3 of 63, lines 14-15) in an EL layer between an anode and a cathode (Osaka-MT, page 9 of 63, lines 8-14), wherein the compounds is used in a layer between the anode and the emitting layer, facilitating hole transport (Osaka-MT, page 10 of 63, lines 30-37), in a layer adjacent to and in support of the emitting layer (Osaka-MT, page 12 of 63, lines 25-31), and therefore considered an emitting auxiliary layer, and as a host in the emitting layer (Osaka-MT, page 14 of 63, lines 34-38), wherein the emitting material may be phosphorescent (Osaka-MT, page 13 of 63 line 19). Osaka additionally teaches an active or passive matrix light emitting device in which the driving of the light emitting element is controlled by a thin film transistor (TFT) (page 17 of 63, lines 35-37), used in a display device (page 22 of 63, lines 18-25). Osaka teaches specific examples of the fluorene derivative including compound (166)
PNG
media_image1.png
202
189
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 26).
The compound (166) is a compound of the claimed Formula (3) wherein:
R1, R2, R3, R4, and A are each hydrogen and B is a C18 arylamine group (a substituent represented by Formula (A) and (D) where:
L1 is a single bond; and
Ar2 is a an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group) and Ar3 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl group (a biphenyl group));
a, b, c, and d are 3, 4, 4, and 4, respectively; and
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A (hereinafter "Osaka-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Osaka-MT") as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Osaka teaches the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Osaka does not exemplify one of the claimed compounds as recited in claim 6. For example, the compound (166)
PNG
media_image1.png
202
189
media_image1.png
Greyscale
differs from the claimed compound 1-5
PNG
media_image2.png
237
165
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in that the position corresponding to Ar2/Ar3 of the claimed Formula (3) and Ar1/Ar2 of Osaka's Formula G1 is a biphenyl group instead of a fluorenyl group. However, Osaka teaches that in Formula G1, Ar1 and Ar2 may be selected from a biphenyl group and a fluorenyl group, among others (Osaka-MT, page 3 of 63, lines 26-30), and teaches exemplary compounds wherein Ar1/Ar2 of Osaka's Formula G1 is a dimethylfluorenyl group including compound (108)
PNG
media_image3.png
257
140
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 21).
Additionally, Osaka teaches that compounds of the Formula G1 in a light emitting device have high luminous efficiency (page 1 of 63, line 7-8 and page 22 of 63, lines 29-31).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Osaka, 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 at the position corresponding to Ar2/Ar3 of the claimed Formula (3) and Ar1/Ar2 of Osaka's Formula G1 with a dimethylfluorenyl group, because Osaka teaches the variable may suitably 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 the EL layer of the device of Osaka and possess the beneficial property of high luminous efficiency, taught by Osaka. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound corresponds to the claimed compound 1-5
PNG
media_image2.png
237
165
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A (hereinafter "Osaka-KR", and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Osaka-MT") as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Yun US-20170125731-A1 (hereinafter "Yun").
Regarding claim 12, Osaka teaches the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 7.
Osaka does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the device further comprises a light efficiency enhancing layer on at least one of the surfaces of the anode and cathode, the surface being opposite 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]). Yun teaches the capping layer includes an organic material that may be a triarylamine-cased compound, and teaches specific examples which are spiro-compound with triarylamine groups (¶ [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 Osaka to include a capping layer on either the anode or cathode (an electrode), 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.
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.
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