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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 8 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 09/21/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-16 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) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/21/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.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 Seung is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/21/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.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 Seung and Conley (US 2005/0211958 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/21/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 64-68 of the reply dated 09/21/2026 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 Ar1 may not be selected from a phenyl group. Applicant particularly argues on pg. 67 that none of the compounds of Wan read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the new grounds of rejection below, the reference Wan (English translation of KR 20190030004 A obtained from Espacenet) teaches compound 655, which reads on the newly amended Chemical Formula 2. Accordingly, the cited references teach the claims as amended.
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 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (US 2023/0096132 A1) in view of Wan (English translation of KR 20190030004 A obtained from Espacenet).
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_image1.png
208
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
198
336
media_image2.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_image3.png
124
250
media_image3.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_image4.png
188
267
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Formula H:
PNG
media_image5.png
212
312
media_image5.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.
Wan teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a compound represented by chemical formula 1, wherein the compound provides improved luminous efficiency, color purity, driving voltage, and lifespan (abstract; ¶ [0007]-[0008], [0018] and [0250]). As shown in the examples, compounds represented by chemical formula 1 are used in an emission-auxiliary layer, wherein the emission-auxiliary layer is provided between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (¶ [0118], [0238], and [0250]). Examples of compounds represented by chemical formula 1 include compound 655 (see structure on pg. 45).
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 an emission-auxiliary layer between the hole transport layers and the light emitting layer, wherein the emission-auxiliary layer contains a compound represented by Wan’s chemical formula 1, based on the teaching of Wan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with provides improved luminous efficiency, color purity, driving voltage, and lifespan, as taught by Wan.
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 655 in the emission-auxiliary layer, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Wan’s chemical formula 1 and taught by Wan, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the emission-auxiliary layer of the device of Hatakeyama in view of Wan and possessing the benefits taught by Hatakeyama and Wan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Wan’s chemical formula 1 having the benefits taught by Wan 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 655 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
655:
PNG
media_image6.png
264
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image7.png
213
238
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 655 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein:
Ar1 is a naphthyl group, and Ar2 is a biphenyl represented by
PNG
media_image8.png
108
76
media_image8.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 655 reads on the 3rd compound on pg. 37 of claim 8.
As discussed above, the emission-auxiliary layer containing compound 655 is directly next to the light emitting layer (claim 9).
Wan teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 facilitates electron blocking (¶ [0017]). As compound 655 is a compound represented by chemical formula 1 and thus facilitates electron blocking, the emission-auxiliary layer may be considered an electron blocking layer (claim 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (US 2023/0096132 A1) in view of Wan (English translation of KR 20190030004 A obtained from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mujica-Fernaud (US 2015/0179940 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama in view of Wan teach the organic EL element comprising compound 655 in an emission-auxiliary layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
655:
PNG
media_image6.png
264
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In compound 655, L is a direct bond and thus compound 655 fails to read on the structures of claim 6.
Mujica-Fernaud teaches compounds represented by general formula (1) for use as hole-transport materials and/or hole-injection materials in an electroluminescent device (¶ [0014]-[0016]). Mujica-Fernaud teaches examples of devices comprising compounds of general formula (1) including devices E3 and E27 (which comprise the compound 1-7) and devices E12 and E35 (which comprise the compound 6-1) (see Table 1 on pg. 134 and Table 3 on pgs. 135-136). Device E12 is identical to device E3 and device E35 is identical to the device E27 except for the use of the compound 6-1 instead of compound 1-7 (see Tables 1 and 3). Compounds 1-7 and 6-1 are identical except for wherein compound 6-1 contains a phenylene linker between the fluorene group and the amine group rather than a direct bond (see structures on pgs. 100 and 119). As shown by Tables 2 and 4, devices E12 and E35 obtain improved lifetime in comparison to devices E3 and E27, respectively (see pgs. 135-136).
1-7:
PNG
media_image9.png
203
187
media_image9.png
Greyscale
6-1:
PNG
media_image10.png
266
314
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 a phenylene linker between the fluorene group and the amine group of compound 655, as shown in compound 6-1 of Mujica-Fernaud, based on the teaching of Mujica-Fernaud. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved lifetime, as taught by Mujica-Fernaud.
The resulting compound reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein L and L2 are each represented by
PNG
media_image11.png
80
109
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(claim 6).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 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 Wan (English translation of KR 20190030004 A obtained from Espacenet).
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_image12.png
240
304
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
198
336
media_image2.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_image3.png
124
250
media_image3.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.
Wan teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a compound represented by chemical formula 1, wherein the compound provides improved luminous efficiency, color purity, driving voltage, and lifespan (abstract; ¶ [0007]-[0008], [0018] and [0250]). As shown in the examples, compounds represented by chemical formula 1 are used in an emission-auxiliary layer, wherein the emission-auxiliary layer is provided between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (¶ [0118], [0238], and [0250]). Examples of compounds represented by chemical formula 1 include compound 655 (see structure on pg. 45).
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 an emission-auxiliary layer between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, wherein the emission-auxiliary layer contains a compound represented by Wan’s chemical formula 1, based on the teaching of Wan. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with provides improved luminous efficiency, color purity, driving voltage, and lifespan, as taught by Wan.
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 655 in the emission-auxiliary layer, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Wan’s chemical formula 1 and taught by Wan, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the emission-auxiliary layer of the device of Hatakeyama in view of Wan and possessing the benefits taught by Hatakeyama ‘124 and Wan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Wan’s chemical formula 1 having the benefits taught by Wan 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 655 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
655:
PNG
media_image6.png
264
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image7.png
213
238
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 655 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein:
Ar1 is a naphthyl group, and Ar2 is a biphenyl represented by
PNG
media_image8.png
108
76
media_image8.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 655 reads on the 3rd compound on pg. 37 of claim 8.
As discussed above, the emission-auxiliary layer containing compound 655 is directly next to the light emitting layer (claim 9).
Wan teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 facilitates electron blocking (¶ [0017]). As compound 655 is a compound represented by chemical formula 1 and thus facilitates electron blocking, the emission-auxiliary layer may be considered an electron blocking layer (claim 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama ‘124 (US 2019/0058124 A1) in view of Wan (English translation of KR 20190030004 A obtained from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mujica-Fernaud (US 2015/0179940 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hatakeyama ‘124 in view of Wan teach the organic EL element comprising compound 655 in an emission-auxiliary layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
655:
PNG
media_image6.png
264
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In compound 655, L is a direct bond and thus compound 655 fails to read on the structures of claim 6.
Mujica-Fernaud teaches compounds represented by general formula (1) for use as hole-transport materials and/or hole-injection materials in an electroluminescent device (¶ [0014]-[0016]). Mujica-Fernaud teaches examples of devices comprising compounds of general formula (1) including devices E3 and E27 (which comprise the compound 1-7) and devices E12 and E35 (which comprise the compound 6-1) (see Table 1 on pg. 134 and Table 3 on pgs. 135-136). Device E12 is identical to device E3 and device E35 is identical to the device E27 except for the use of the compound 6-1 instead of compound 1-7 (see Tables 1 and 3). Compounds 1-7 and 6-1 are identical except for wherein compound 6-1 contains a phenylene linker between the fluorene group and the amine group rather than a direct bond (see structures on pgs. 100 and 119). As shown by Tables 2 and 4, devices E12 and E35 obtain improved lifetime in comparison to devices E3 and E27, respectively (see pgs. 135-136).
1-7:
PNG
media_image9.png
203
187
media_image9.png
Greyscale
6-1:
PNG
media_image10.png
266
314
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 a phenylene linker between the fluorene group and the amine group of compound 655, as shown in compound 6-1 of Mujica-Fernaud, based on the teaching of Mujica-Fernaud. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved lifetime, as taught by Mujica-Fernaud.
The resulting compound reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein L and L2 are each represented by
PNG
media_image11.png
80
109
media_image11.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 Wan (English translation of KR 20190030004 A obtained from Espacenet) 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 Wan 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 Wan 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_image13.png
273
197
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Formula H:
PNG
media_image5.png
212
312
media_image5.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.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights