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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 01/08/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 8 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 dated 01/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (US 2023/0096132 A1) in view of Kwak (WO 2017204594 A1 using US 2019/0148650 A1 as English translation) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama ‘124 (US 2019/0058124 A1) in view of Kwak is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 3, 7, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama ‘124 in view of Kwak and Liang (Liang, Xiao, Zhen-Long Tu, and You-Xuan Zheng. “Thermally activated delayed fluorescence materials: towards realization of high efficiency through strategic small molecular design.” Chemistry—A European Journal 25.22 (2019): 5623-5642) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama ‘124 in view of Kwak and Conley (US 2005/0211958 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/08/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 68-75 of the reply dated 01/08/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 68-70, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach the amended claims, which require a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein Ar2 may not be selected from a phenyl group and L2 is a phenylene, a biphenylene, a terphenylene, or a naphthylene group.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Seung (English translation of KR 20170134163 obtained from Global Dossier) teaches a compound that reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein L2 is a phenylene group and Ar2 is a phenanthrene group, and teaches another compound that reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein L2 is a phenylene group and Ar2 is a triphenylene group. Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Applicant's argument –On pages 70-75, Applicant argues the combination of claimed compounds in the light emitting layer and the second hole transport layer achieve unexpectedly improved driving voltage, efficiency, and service life characteristics. Applicant points to the data provided in the Declaration filed 01/13/2026 for support. In the Second Declaration Table A of the Declaration filed 01/13/2026, the devices of Experimental Examples 2-1 to 2-20 have the same structure of Hatakeyama (US 2023/0096132 A1) except the material for the second hole transport layer was replaced with Compound A-2, A-5, or A-7 of the instant application, and the light emitting layer included a compound of Chemical Formula 2 of the instant application as a dopant. Applicant further data for Comparative Example 2-1 which comprises Compound 8 (a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1). Accordingly, Applicant argues the unexpected results are specifically attributed to a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2 when used in combination with a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1.
Examiner's response – As shown in Second Declaration Table A, Experimental Examples 2-4 and 2-10 are the only devices that differ from Comparative Example 2-1 by just the material of the second hole transport layer. Experimental Examples 2-1 to 2-3, 2-5 to 2-9, and 2-11 to 2-20 differ from Comparative Example 2-1 by both the material of the second hole transport layer and the dopant of the light emitting layer. Accordingly, to determine whether it is truly a compound represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 2 (i.e., the material of the second hole transport layer) which provides devices with unexpected results, only data between Comparative Examples 2-1 and Experimental Examples 2-4 and 2-10 must be examined. The results are summarized below:
Second HTL
Dopant of emitting layer
Voltage (V)
Efficiency (cd/A)
Service life (T95, hr)
Comp. Ex. 2-1
HT-2
Compound 8
3.88
5.65
160
Example 2-4
Compound A-2
Compound 8
3.60
6.04
205
Example 2-10
Compound A-5
Compound 8
3.59
6.03
205
The structures of Compound 8, Compound A-2, and Compound A-5 are shown on instant pgs. 188, 230, and 232-233.
Compound 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
170
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A-2:
PNG
media_image2.png
209
151
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A-5:
PNG
media_image3.png
173
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As discussed in the previous office action dated 09/10/2025, overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Commensurate in Scope
As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, new rejections are made over i) Hatakeyama in view of the newly cited reference Seung; and ii) Hatakeyama ‘124 in view of the newly cited reference Sueng. Sueng is used to teach a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein L2 is a phenylene group and Ar2 is either a phenanthrene or triphenylene group, which is within the scope of claim 1. As seen by the structures above, neither Compound A-2 or A-5 comprise a triphenylene group in the location of A2 and an phenylene group in the location of L2. Additionally, there is no data in the instant specification or Declaration for compounds of Chemical Formula 2 wherein Ar2 is a triphenylene group and L2 is a phenylene group. Accordingly, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims. As there are no results comprising a compound of Chemical Formula 2 wherein Ar2 is a triphenylene group and L2 is a phenylene, it is unclear if such a compound would obtain the same results discussed by Applicant.
Additionally, as discussed previously in the Final Rejection dated 09/10/2025, Hatakeyama teaches a device comprising the dopant Compound (1-590) and Hatakeyama ‘124 teaches the dopant Compound (1-571). Both Compound (1-590) and Compound (1-571) are within the scope of the claimed Chemical Formula 1, as discussed in the rejections below. However, as shown in Second Declaration Table A of the Declaration dated 01/13/2026, the Experimental Examples and the Comparative Examples use the dopant Compounds 1-6, 8, 9-10, 12, 15-18, 22, 24-25. As shown by the structures on pages 178-228 of the instant specification, the dopants 1-6, 8, 9-10, 12, 15-18, 22, 24-25 are different in structure from Compound (1-590) and Compound (1-571) (see Hatakeyama, pg. 569; and Hatakeyama ‘124, pg. 26). Accordingly, as there is no data in the instant specification or Declaration for devices comprising dopants of Compound (1-590) and Compound (1-571), the results are not commensurate in scope with the claims. As there are no results of a device comprising dopants of Compound (1-590) and Compound (1-571), it is unclear if devices comprising dopants of Compound (1-590) and Compound (1-571) and compounds of the claimed Chemical Formula 2 would obtain the same results discussed by Applicant.
Comparison with closest prior art
Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. The device examples of the Declaration filed 01/13/206 comprise different device materials than the devices of Hatakeyama and Hatakeyama ‘124.
Hatakeyama teaches the device of Example 1-2, which includes a dopant of Compound (1-590) (¶ [0676]-[0678] and Table 1A on pg. 594). As discussed above, the devices of the Declaration filed 01/13/2026 comprise different dopant compounds than that of Hatakeyama.
Likewise, Hatakeyama ‘124 teaches dopant materials represented by general formula (1) including compound (1-571) (pg. 26). As discussed above, the devices of the Declaration filed 01/13/2026 comprise different dopant compounds than that of Hatakeyama ‘124.
Applicant has not provided an explanation regarding this difference. It is unclear if the device comprising the dopants of Hatakeyama and Hatakeyama ‘124 that also contain a compound of the Chemical Formula 2 (wherein L2 is a phenylene, a biphenylene, a terphenylene, or a naphthylene and Ar2 is a biphenyl, a terphenyl, a naphthyl, a phenanthrenyl, or a triphenylene group) would obtain the results as discussed by Applicant.
As the devices of Applicant and the devices of Hatakeyama and Hatakeyama ‘124 comprise different dopants, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Unexpected Results
As shown in Second Declaration Table A, Experimental Examples 2-4 and 2-10 achieve an 8% improvement in voltage, a 7% improvement in efficiency, and a 28% improvement in service life in comparison to the Comparative Example 2-1. While there is improvement in voltage, efficiency, and life between the Experimental Examples 2-4 and 2-10 and devices of Comparative Examples 2-1, it is unclear whether these performances are truly unexpected.
As discussed further in the rejection below, Seung teaches an organic light-emitting device obtains improved efficiency, operating voltage, and/or life characteristics by comprising at least one compound represented by formulas 2 to 4 (beginning of pg. 4). Examples of such compounds include the compounds on page 35 of Seung, and these compounds read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 as described in greater detail in the rejection below. Accordingly, Seung recognizes that compounds represented by formulas 2 to 4 (including those within the scope of the claimed Chemical Formula 2) provide improved efficiency, voltage, and life.
Additionally, Experimental Examples 2-4 and 2-10 comprise a different compound than that of Comparative Example 2-1. One of ordinary skill would expect some difference between compounds having different structures and thus devices comprising different compounds would be expected to result in some difference in properties, including voltage, efficiency, and service life.
Thus, in light of the teachings of Seung, and given that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect some difference between compounds having different structures, it is unclear whether the degree of improvement shown by the data in the Declaration is truly unexpected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (US 2023/0096132 A1) in view of Seung (English translation of KR 20170134163 obtained from Global Dossier), supporting information provided by Wan (English translation of KR 20190030004 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-16, Hatakeyama teaches the organic EL element of Example 1-2 which includes an anode, two hole injection layers, two hole transport layers, a light emitting layer, two electron transport layers, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer includes a host of BH-1 and a dopant of Compound (1-590) in a weight ratio of 98:2 (¶ [0676]-[0680]; Table 1A on pg. 594) (claims 11, 14, and 16). Hatakeyama teaches Example 1-2 emits at a maximum emission wavelength of 463 nm (claim 15) (Table 1B on pg. 596).
Compound (1-590) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1 (pg. 569).
(1-590):
PNG
media_image4.png
208
297
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
198
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound (1-590) reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
Cy1 and Cy4 are a ring of Chemical Formula 1-A
PNG
media_image6.png
124
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and particularly of Chemical Formula 1-A-3 (claim 3);
Cy2, Cy3, and Cy5 are each a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring;
b* and c* in each of Cy1 and Cy4 are fused to Chemical Formula 1;
R1 is a combination of hydrogen and unsubstituted alkyl group;
n1 is 2; and
r1 is an integer of 4.
Additionally, Compound (1-590) reads: on the claimed Chemical Formula 101 wherein R2 and R3 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group, and r2 and r3 are each 1 (claim 2); the claimed Chemical Formula 117 wherein R1 is a combination of hydrogen and unsubstituted alkyl, R3, R4, and R6 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group, n2 and 3 are each 2, r3, r4, and r6 are each 1, and r101 and r102 are each 4 (claim 4); and the first claimed compound on pg. 16 of claim 7.
The host compound BH-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula H (pg. 595) (claim 12).
BH-1:
PNG
media_image7.png
188
267
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Formula H:
PNG
media_image8.png
212
312
media_image8.png
Greyscale
BH-1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula H wherein:
L21 and L22 are each a direct bond;
Ar21 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group and Ar22 is an unsubstituted aryl group;
R201 and R202 are each hydrogen; and
n202 is 7.
Additionally, BH-1 reads on the first claimed compound on pg. 54 of claim 13.
Hatakeyama fails to teach a layer comprising a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
Seung teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising one or more hole control layers comprising at least one compound represented by formulas 2 to 4, wherein the one or more hole control layers is provided between a hole transporting layer and a light-emitting layer (middle of pg. 2 and bottom of pg. 61). Such a device has improved efficiency, operating voltage, and/or life characteristics (beginning of pg. 4). Examples of compounds represented by formulas 2 to 4 include the compounds below on pg. 35, hereinafter referred to as compound A and compound B.
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 further provide in Hatakeyama’s device a hole control layer between the hole transport layers and the light emitting layer, wherein the hole control layer contains a compound represented by one of Seung’s formulas 2 to 4, based on the teaching of Seung. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved efficiency, operating voltage, and/or life characteristics, as taught by Seung.
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound A (or alternatively, compound B) in the hole control layer, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Seung’s formulas 2 to 4 and taught by Seung, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the hole control layer of the device of Hatakeyama in view of Seung and possessing the benefits taught by Hatakeyama and Seung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Seung’s formulas 2 to 4 having the benefits taught by Seung in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound A is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
Compound A:
PNG
media_image9.png
157
118
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image10.png
213
238
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Compound A reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein:
Ar1 is a phenyl group, and Ar2 is a phenanthrene represented by
PNG
media_image11.png
68
83
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(claim 5);
L and L1 are each a direct bond and L2 is a phenylene group;
Z1 to Z4 are not required to be present; and
z1 to z4 are each 0.
Additionally, compound A reads on the 3rd compound on pg. 33 of claim 8.
Compound B is reproduced below and reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 in the same way as compound A above except wherein Ar2 is a triphenylene group represented by
PNG
media_image12.png
91
100
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(claim 5).
compound B:
PNG
media_image13.png
134
76
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, the hole control layer containing Seung’s compound is directly next to the light emitting layer (claim 9).
Wan teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 facilitates electron blocking (second half of pg. 2). Compounds A and B read on Wan’s Chemical Formula 1 wherein: R and R’ are each a C6 aryl group; Ar is a C6 aryl group; Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C6 aryl group, Ar3 is a C10 aryl group or a C18 aryl group, and Ar4 is not required to be present; R1 to R3 are each hydrogen; l is 4, m is 2, n is 1; and o is 0 (see Wan, middle of pg. 2). Accordingly, as evidenced by Wan, compounds A and B facilitate electron blocking and thus the layer comprising compound A (or alternatively, compound B) may be considered an electron blocking layer (claim 10).
Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama in view of Seung teach the organic EL element comprising compound A (or alternatively, compound B) in a hole control layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
compound A:
PNG
media_image9.png
157
118
media_image9.png
Greyscale
compound B:
PNG
media_image13.png
134
76
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In Seung’s compounds A and B, L is a direct bond and thus Seung’s compounds fail to read on the structures of claim 6. However, in Seung’s formula 2, L9 can be present or absent (i.e., a direct bond) and be represented by an arylene group (beginning of pg. 3). Seung teaches an example of a compound represented by formula 2 wherein L9 is a phenyl group, as shown in the compound below on pg. 34.
PNG
media_image14.png
73
61
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Seung, in compound A (or alternatively, compound B) 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 direct bond between the fluorenyl group and the N atom with a phenyl group, as shown in the compound above on pg. 34, because Seung teaches the L9 may suitably be present and selected as a phenyl group. 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 control layer of the device of Hatakeyama in view of Seung and possess the benefits taught by Seung. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting compounds read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein L and L2 are each is represented by
PNG
media_image15.png
80
109
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(claim 6).
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama ‘124 (US 2019/0058124 A1) in view of Seung (English translation of KR 20170134163 obtained from Global Dossier), supporting information provided by Wan (English translation of KR 20190030004 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, and 14-16, Hatakeyama ‘124 teaches an organic EL element comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer includes 50 to 99.999% by weight of a host material and a dopant material represented by the general formula (1) (abstract; ¶ [0019], [0127]) (claims 11, 14, and 16). Such a device obtains optimal light emission characteristics (abstract). Examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) include compound (1-571) (pg. 26).
Compound (1-571) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1.
(1-590):
PNG
media_image16.png
240
304
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
198
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound (1-571) reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
Cy1, Cy2, Cy4, and Cy5 are a ring of Chemical Formula 1-A
PNG
media_image6.png
124
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
;
Cy3 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring;
b* and c* in each of Cy1, Cy2, Cy4, and Cy5 are fused to Chemical Formula 1;
R1 is hydrogen;
n1 is 2; and
r1 is an integer of 6.
Additionally, Compound (1-571) reads on: the claimed Chemical Formula 101 wherein R2 is bonded to an adjacent substituent to form an unsubstituted ring, R3 is a substituted amine group, and r2 is 2, and r3 is 1 (claim 2); and the claimed Chemical Formula 114 wherein R1 is hydrogen, R3 is a substituted amine group, r3 is 1, and r101 and r102 are each 6 (claim 4).
Hatakeyama ‘124 is directed towards organic materials having luminescence characteristics for blue light, and teaches compounds represented by the general formula (1) emit blue light (¶ [0002], [0005], and [0362]-[375]; Table 2). Accordingly, a light emitting layer comprising compound (1-571), which is a compound of general formula (1), is expected to be a blue light emitting layer. As recited in the instant specification, a blue light emitting layer has a maximum light emission peak of 400 nm to 500 nm and thus the limitations of claim 15 are satisfied (instant ¶ [0379]).
Hatakeyama ‘124 fails to teach a layer comprising a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
Seung teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising one or more hole control layers comprising at least one compound represented by formulas 2 to 4, wherein the one or more hole control layers is provided between a hole transporting layer and a light-emitting layer (middle of pg. 2 and bottom of pg. 61). Such a device has improved efficiency, operating voltage, and/or life characteristics (beginning of pg. 4). Examples of compounds represented by formulas 2 to 4 include the compounds below on pg. 35, hereinafter referred to as compound A and compound B.
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 further provide in the device of Hatakeyama ‘124 a hole control layer between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, wherein the hole control layer contains a compound represented by one of Seung’s formulas 2 to 4, based on the teaching of Seung. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved efficiency, operating voltage, and/or life characteristics, as taught by Seung.
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound A (or alternatively, compound B) in the hole control layer, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Seung’s formulas 2 to 4 and taught by Seung, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the hole control layer of the device of Hatakeyama in view of Seung and possessing the benefits taught by Hatakeyama ‘124 and Seung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Seung’s formulas 2 to 4 having the benefits taught by Seung in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound A is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
Compound A:
PNG
media_image9.png
157
118
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image10.png
213
238
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Compound A reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein:
Ar1 is a phenyl group, and Ar2 is a phenanthrene represented by
PNG
media_image11.png
68
83
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(claim 5);
L and L1 are each a direct bond and L2 is a phenylene group;
Z1 to Z4 are not required to be present; and
z1 to z4 are each 0.
Additionally, compound A reads on the 3rd compound on pg. 33 of claim 8.
Compound B is reproduced below and reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 in the same way as compound A above except wherein Ar2 is a triphenylene group represented by
PNG
media_image12.png
91
100
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(claim 5).
compound B:
PNG
media_image13.png
134
76
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, the hole control layer containing Seung’s compound is directly next to the light emitting layer (claim 9).
Wan teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 facilitates electron blocking (second half of pg. 2). Compounds A and B read on Wan’s Chemical Formula 1 wherein: R and R’ are each a C6 aryl group; Ar is a C6 aryl group; Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C6 aryl group, Ar3 is a C10 aryl group or a C18 aryl group, and Ar4 is not required to be present; R1 to R3 are each hydrogen; l is 4, m is 2, n is 1; and o is 0 (see Wan, middle of pg. 2). Accordingly, compounds A and B facilitate electron blocking and thus the layer comprising compound A (or alternatively, compound B) may be considered an electron blocking layer (claim 10).
Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama ‘124 in view of Seung teach the organic EL element comprising compound A (or alternatively, compound B) in a hole control layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
compound A:
PNG
media_image9.png
157
118
media_image9.png
Greyscale
compound B:
PNG
media_image13.png
134
76
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In Seung’s compounds, L is a direct bond and thus Seung’s compounds fail to read on the structures of claim 6. However, in Seung’s formula 2, L9 can be present or absent (i.e., a direct bond) and be represented by an arylene group (beginning of pg. 3). Seung teaches an example of a compound represented by formula 2 wherein L9 is a phenyl group, as shown in the compound below on pg. 34.
PNG
media_image14.png
73
61
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Seung, in compound A (or alternatively, compound B) 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 direct bond between the fluorenyl group and the N atom with a phenyl group, as shown in the compound above on pg. 34, because Seung teaches the L9 may suitably be present and selected as a phenyl group. 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 control layer of the device of Hatakeyama in view of Seung and possess the benefits taught by Seung. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting compounds read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein L and L2 are each is represented by
PNG
media_image15.png
80
109
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(claim 6).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama ‘124 (US 2019/0058124 A1) in view of Seung (English translation of KR 20170134163 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Conley (US 2005/0211958 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, Hatakeyama ‘124 in view of Seung teaches the organic EL element including a host and dopant of compound (1-571), as described above with respect to claim 11.
Hatakeyama ‘124 in view of Seung fail to teach a host that reads on the claimed Chemical Formula H. However, Hatakeyama ‘124 does not limit the host to particular structures.
Conley teaches an electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer containing a host, wherein the host has improved operational stability and is an anthracene compound represented by Formula (1) (abstract; ¶ [0001], [0011], and [0015]). Examples of the anthracene compound represented by Formula (1) include Inv-5, as shown in EL devices 25-30 (pg. 7; Table 5 on pg. 24).
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 select a compound of Conley’s Formula (1) (and particularly, Inv-5 as shown in EL devices 25-30) for the host of the device of Hatakeyama ‘124 in view of Seung, based on the teaching of Conley. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved operational stability, as taught by Conley.
Inv-5 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula H (pg. 595) (claim 12).
Inv-5:
PNG
media_image17.png
273
197
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Formula H:
PNG
media_image8.png
212
312
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Inv-5 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula H wherein:
L21 and L22 are each a direct bond;
Ar21 and Ar22 are each an unsubstituted aryl group;
R201 is an unsubstituted aryl group and R202 is hydrogen; and
n202 is 7.
Additionally, Inv-5 reads on the 11th claimed compound on pg. 43 of claim 13.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights