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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 06/05/2026 has been entered.
The applicant's supplemental amendment of 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 6, and 9-11 are amended and claim 5 is cancelled due to the applicant's amendment of 06/05/2026.
Claims 1 and 9-11 amended due to the applicant's amendment of 07/09/2026.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 15-16 are pending.
The objection and rejections of claim 5 are moot because the claim is cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
The objections and rejections of claims 1 and 9-11 as set forth in the previous Office action are each moot because the claims are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejections of claims 1, 7-11, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Yun US-20170125731-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/09/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A as applied to claim 1 as set forth in the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 11-16 of the reply dated 06/05/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et al. KR-20120014913-A as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the applicant's argument of unexpected results. The rejection has been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made newly cited Huang et al. CN-107652223-A and Lee et al. WO-2021085982-A1, see equivalent US-20240357933-A1.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 6, on line 4, is it suggested that "1-75 to 1-76" be replaced with "1-75, 1-76" for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 15-16 rejected 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.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation "A and B are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen; deuterium; a C1-C60 alkyl group; a C6-C60 aryl group; fluorenyl group; a C2-C60 heterocyclic group including at least one heteroatom of O, N, S, Si or P", and the claim also recites "A and B are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen; deuterium; a C1-C60 alkyl group; a C6-C60 aryl group" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the definition of A and B is the broader of the two definitions and also such that A and B may be a substituent represented by Formula (3).
Claims 6-12 and 15-16 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "at least one of A and B is a substituent represented by Formula (B)… or in case e, f, g and h are 2 or more, R5 and R6 are each in plural being the same or different,…" However, the variables g and h are not present in the chemical structural formulae and e and f are not defined in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that e is an integer from 0 to 3, f is an integer from 0 to 4, and in case e and f are 2 or more, R5 and R6 are each in plural being the same or different.
Claims 6-12 and 15-16 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites "[t]he compound of claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Formula (3) is any of following compounds… 1-65,.. 1-81…" However, the compound 1-65 comprises an alkoxy group at the position corresponds to R3 which is no longer included in the definition of R3 as amended and the compound 1-81 comprises an arylamine at the position corresponding to R1 which is no longer included in the definition of R1 as amended. Therefore, it is unclear how the compound of Formula (3) may be either of compound 1-65 or compound 1-81.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that compounds 1-65 and 1-81 are not present in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites "[t]he compound of claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Formula (3) is any of following compounds… 1-65,.. 1-81…" However, the compound 1-65 comprises an alkoxy group at the position corresponds to R3 which is no longer included in the definition of R3 as amended and the compound 1-81 comprises an arylamine at the position corresponding to R1 which is no longer included in the definition of R1 as amended. Therefore, if either of compound 1-65 or compound 1-81 is selected fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. WO-2021085982-A1, see equivalent US-20240357933-A1 (hereinafter "Lee").
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
The applied reference has a common inventor/assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1, 6-10, and 15-16, Lee discloses an organic electric element comprising an organic material layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic material layer includes a light-emitting layer, a hole transport layer between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer, and a plurality of emission-auxiliary layers between the light-emitting layer and the hole transport layer, wherein the first emission-auxiliary layer includes a compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0035]-[0039] and [0065]). Lee discloses an electronic device including a display device which includes the above organic electric element, and a control unit for controlling the display device (¶ [0063]). Lee discloses examples of the compound represented by formula 1 in paragraph [0123] that meet the claimed Formula (3) including P3-72
PNG
media_image1.png
289
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and P3-73
PNG
media_image2.png
307
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 80), which meet the claimed Formula (3) and correspond to the claimed compounds 1-5 and compound 1-9.
Therefore, the device of comprising the compound of Huang meets claims 1, 6-10, and 15-16.
Claims 1 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. CN-107652223-A (hereinafter "Huang-CN, see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Huang-CN").
Regarding claims 1 and 7-11, Huang discloses an organic electroluminescent device, the device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer, wherein the organic layer comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, and wherein at least one layer comprising the organic electroluminescent compound of a Formula I (Huang page 3 of 9, lines 9-13 and 21-22), and may be a phosphorescent host material (page 8 of 9, lines 6-8). The hole transport layer is adjacent to and in support of the light emitting layer and therefore may be considered an emitting auxiliary layer. Huang discloses examples of the compound of Formula I on pages 2-8 (Huang-CN) including compound 57
PNG
media_image3.png
241
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Huang-CN, page 7), which is a compound of the claimed Formula (3) wherein:
R1 is a C12 heterocyclic group (a carbazolyl group), R2 to R4 and A are each hydrogen, and B is a substituent represented by Formula (B);
a is 1, b, c, and d are each 4;
Ar1 is a C6 aryl group (a phenyl group);
L1 is a single bond;
Ar2 is a C12 aryl group (a biphenyl group);
X is CR'R'';
R' and R'' are each a C1 alkyl group (a methyl group);
R5 and R6 are each hydrogen; and
e is 3 and f is 4.
Therefore, the device of comprising the compound of Huang meets claims 1 and 7-11.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. WO-2021085982-A1, see equivalent US-20240357933-A1 (hereinafter "Lee") as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Yun US- 20170125731-A1 (hereinafter "Yun").
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 7.
Lee does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the device further comprises alight 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 Lee to include a capping layer on either the anode or cathode, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. CN-107652223-A (hereinafter "Huang-CN, see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Huang-CN") as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Yun US- 20170125731-A1 (hereinafter "Yun").
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 7.
Huang does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the device further comprises alight 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 Huang to include a capping layer on either the anode or cathode, 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.
Claims 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. CN-107652223-A (hereinafter "Huang-CN, see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Huang-CN") as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Ono et al. US-20140138648-A1 (hereinafter "Ono").
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 7.
Huang 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 Cha1 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,671. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: claim 1 recites an organic electric element, comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and an organic material layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, the organic material layer comprising: a light-emitting layer; a hole transport layer between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer; and a plurality of emission-auxiliary layers between the light-emitting layer and the hole transport layer, wherein the plurality of emission-auxiliary layers comprise a first emission-auxiliary layer adjacent to the hole transport layer and a second emission-auxiliary layer adjacent to the light-emitting layer, wherein the first emission-auxiliary layer and the second emission-auxiliary layer are formed of different compounds, wherein the first emission-auxiliary layer comprises a compound represented by the following Formula 1; claim 12 recites compounds including P3-72
PNG
media_image1.png
289
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and P3-73
PNG
media_image2.png
307
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which meet the claimed Formula (3) and correspond to the claimed compounds 1-5 and compound 1-9; and claim 20 recites an electronic device comprising a display device and a control unit for driving the display device, wherein the display device comprises the organic electric element.
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