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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 11, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on March 11, 2026.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 16 – 20 have been added.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 11, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Suruga as set forth in the office action filed November 13, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (US20230096132A1) in view of Cha (US20180123042A1).
As per claims 1 – 9 and 20, Hatakeyama teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode provided to face the anode, and an organic material layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic material layer comprises a light emitting layer and a first organic material layer provided between the anode and the light emitting layer (In [0676 – 0678], Hatakeyama teaches the formation of a device, including an ITO electrode as a positive electrode, LiF/aluminum electrode as a negative electrode and the layers defined in Table 1A, between the two.)
The light emitting layer comprises a compound of the following Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
212
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama teaches compounds of general formula (2)
PNG
media_image2.png
180
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0029]). A specific compound taught by Hatakeyama is compound 1-590
PNG
media_image3.png
224
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Cy1 and Cy4 are a ring in which an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring and a substituted aliphatic hydrocarbon ring are fused, namely a group represented by Chemical Formula 1-A in claim 1 and Chemical Formula 1-A-3 in claim 3, wherein R1 is an unsubstituted alkyl group and r1 is 4; n1 is 2 and Cy2, Cy3, and Cy5 are substituted aromatic hydrocarbon rings. This compound is represented by Chemical Formula 101 in claim 2, wherein R2 and R3 are an unsubstituted alkyl group; r101 is an integer of 4. This compound is represented by Chemical Formula 117 in claim 4. This compound is the same the compound
PNG
media_image4.png
114
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on page 22 of claim 8 and page 163 of claim 20. In Example 1-2, as shown in Table 1A, compound 1-590 is used as a dopant in the light emitting layer.)
Hatakeyama teaches a triarylamine based hole transport compound HT-1
PNG
media_image5.png
250
322
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in the Example devices ([0675]), but Hatakeyama teaches that any suitable known material for transporting holes can be used to form the hole transport layer ([0191]). Hatakeyama does not teach:
The first organic material layer comprises a compound of the following Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image6.png
240
384
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Cha teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image7.png
184
298
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0009]). Cha teaches that these compounds are useful as hole transporting layers ([0138]). Cha teaches that the phenanthrene in the structure contains more abundant electrons than benzene and that this provides improved hole transporting characteristics ([0037]). A particular compound taught by Cha is
PNG
media_image8.png
246
272
media_image8.png
Greyscale
on Page 12, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein L1 is a direct bond and L2 and L3 are each an unsubstituted arylene group, namely L2 and L3 are
PNG
media_image9.png
76
94
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 7, Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group, namely a fluorenyl group that is substituted at carbon number 9 with an alkyl group, namely
PNG
media_image10.png
98
132
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in claim 6, wherein S12 is a methyl group and
PNG
media_image11.png
80
86
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 6 and R11 is hydrogen. This compound reads on Chemical Formula 201 of Claim 5. This compound is the same compound as
PNG
media_image12.png
136
152
media_image12.png
Greyscale
on page 38 of claim 9 and page 98 in claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound, such as the claimed compound in the hole transport layer of Hatakeyama because Hatakeyama teaches any known hole transport material may be used and Cha teaches that triarylamine compounds, similar to the triarylamine compounds in the Examples of Hatakeyama, that include a phenanthrene substituent contain more abundant electrons than benzene and that this provides improved hole transporting characteristics ([0037]).
As per claim 10, Hatakeyama teaches:
Wherein the first organic material layer is provided to be brought into direct contact with the light emitting layer (In Fig. 1, as described in [0178], the hole transport layer is shown to be directly beneath the light emitting layer, which is interpreted as being in direct contact.)
As per claim 11, Hatakeyama teaches:
Wherein the light emitting layer has a maximum light emission peak of 400 nm to 500 nm (In Table 1B, Example 1-2 is shown to have an emission of 463 nm.)
As per claims 12 – 14, and 17 – 19, Hatakeyama teaches:
Wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host and a dopant, and the dopant comprises the compound of Chemical Formula 1 ([0197]: “The light emitting layer may be formed of a single layer or a plurality of layers, and each layer is formed of a material for a light emitting layer (a host material and a dopant material).” In Example 1-2, as shown in Table 1A, compound 1-590 is used as a dopant in the light emitting layer.)
Wherein the host comprises a compound of Chemical Formula H
PNG
media_image13.png
248
284
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(Hatakeyama teaches that the host is preferably an anthracene-based compound ([0202]). A specific compound taught as an anthracene-based host compound is compound 3-24
PNG
media_image14.png
158
318
media_image14.png
Greyscale
([0253]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein L21 is a direct bond; L22 is an unsubstituted arylene group; Ar21 is an unsubstituted aryl group; Ar22 is an unsubstituted arylene group; R201 and R202 are each hydrogen. This compound is the same as compound
PNG
media_image15.png
128
76
media_image15.png
Greyscale
on page 78 of claim 14 and page 140 of claim 19.)
As per claim 15, Hatakeyama teaches:
Wherein a weight ratio of the host and dopant is 99:1 to 90:10 ([0199]: “The amount of use of the dopant material depends on the kind of dopant material, and may be determined according to a characteristic of the dopant material. The reference amount of use of the dopant is… still more preferably from 0.1 to 10% by weight with respect to the total amount of material for a light emitting layer.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789