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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 11/10/25, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on the instantly filed claims. Independent claims 1 and 8 have been amended such that in Formulae 1-3, one of R1 and R2 is an (un)substituted carbazolyl group and [the other] one of R1 and R2 is hydrogen or an (un)substituted diphenylamino group, or one of R1 and R2 is hydrogen, and [the other] one of R1 and R2 is an (un)substituted diphenylamino group. Applicants have also canceled claim 20. Applicants amendments have overcome the previous prior art rejections in the non-final action, but further search has led to new prior art rejections as described below. Additionally, Applicants amendments have raised new 112(d) rejections as described below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to. The limitation “and another one” as it appears twice in claims 1 and 8 should be amended to “the other one” for better clarity.
Claims 6, 16, and 17 are objected to. The limitation “selected from a group consisting of following” as it appears in each of claims 6, 16, and 17 should be amended to “selected from the group consisting of the following” for better clarity. Additionally, the word “and” should be inserted between the last two structures of claims 6, 16, and 17 for better clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 6, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. The compounds
PNG
media_image1.png
124
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
82
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as recited in claims 6, 16, and 17, fail to further limit claim 1, which does not allow for R1 and R2 to be the same as each other. This rejection also applied to claims 7, 18, and 19, which all recite that R1 and R2 are the same as each other. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims 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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (Chem. Commun. 2000, 133-134).
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 16, and 17: Watanabe et al. teaches the compound
PNG
media_image3.png
108
102
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(entry 2 of Table 1). This compound anticipates Formula 1 of claim 1 with either R1 and R2 equal to hydrogen and the other of R1 and R2 equal to an unsubstituted diphenylamino group. Additionally, this compound anticipates Formula 1-1 of claim 2, Formula 1-2 of claim 3, the first structure of claim 4. The compound above is identical to the first compound shown in claim 6. The rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 are also anticipated by the compound shown above.
Claims 5, 14, and 15: Claims 5, 14, and 15 serve to further limit the optional embodiment where the compound of claim 1 satisfies Formula 3. Because claims 5, 14, and 15 serve to further limit an optional embodiment, Watanabe et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claims 5, 14, and 15, despite not teaching a compound of Formula 3.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shao et al. (CN-111410640). Copies of the original and a machine translation are included with this Office action.
Shao et al. teaches compounds which are employed as hole injection or hole transport materials in organic light-emitting diodes which comprise an anode, a hole transport region comprising a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a cathode. The explicitly taught compounds of Shao et al. are taught to be effective as hole injection and hole transport materials as shown in the device examples. In one device example, compound 2 of Shao et al., which has the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
174
208
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is employed in an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a cathode as a hole injection layer material. Using the top right thiophene group above, this compound anticipates Formula 1 with one of R1 and R2 being hydrogen and the other of R1 and R2 being a substituted diphenylamino group (any one of the remaining three thiophene groups could also be applied in the same manner as the top right thiophene). Device example (2) of Shao et al. employs compound 2 as a hole injection layer. Therefore, device example (2) of Shao et al. anticipates all of the structural and device limitations of claims 8 and 10. Further, Shao et al. more generally teaches that any one of the explicitly taught compounds may be employed as a hole injection material or a hole transport material. As such, the employment of any one of the explicitly taught compounds of Shao et al., including compound (2) as a hole injection material or as a hole transport material, is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claim 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 of this title, 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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (CN-111410640) in view of Dai et al. (Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1607022) as applied to claim 8 above.
Shao et al. teaches organic light emitting devices where the hole transport region is comprised of a compound which adheres to formula 1 of claim 8 as described above. While Shao et al does not teach that the light emitting devices taught therein are quantum dot light emitting devices as required by claim 11, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare such a light emitting device given the teachings of Dai et al. Shao et al. and Dai et al. are combinable teachings as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Dai et al. teaches in section 2 the unique advantages of quantum dot displays. Dai et al. teaches that compared to OLED displays, QD displays have improved color purity due to their narrow emission linewidths and have low operational voltages and high power conversion efficiencies, and excellent stability. For any one of these reasons, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have prepared a light-emitting device using the hole injection/hole transporting materials taught by Shao et al. wherein the emission layer is a quantum dot light-emission layer. In so doing, the limitations of claim 11 would be satisfied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766