DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 9, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment dated April 9, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 2-8 are cancelled claims. Claims 1 and 9-14 are pending.
The rejection of claim 1, 3, and 9-14 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (WO 2019/098234 A1 – where family equivalent document US 2020/0335703 A1 was used as the English language translation document) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 3.
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.
Claims 1 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (WO 2019/098234 A1 – note that family equivalent document US 2020/0335703 A1 has been used as the English language translation document in the below citations).
Regarding compound claim 1, Mochizuki et al. teaches arylamine compounds according to formula (1) (see abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
204
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula, L1 may be phenyl bonding in a meta position (see par. 35 with bonding line into center of ring encompassing meta position bonding), “n” may be 1 per the instant R4-R7 ring (see abstract), Ar3 and Ar4 may be aromatic hydrocarbon groups (see abstract) that include at least phenyl group (see par. 82) per the instant phenyls upon a middle phenylene of a terphenyl group, R1 and R3 may be hydrogen (see abstract) and R2 may be aromatic hydrocarbon that includes at least phenyl group (see par. 82), Ar1 and Ar2 may be substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group per instant groups Ar1 and Ar2 that include at least phenyl (see par. 82) that may be substituted with at least a naphthyl (see par. 83) or Ar1 and Ar2 can be selected a biphenyl or terphenyl (see corresponding groups within compound “1-19” in figure 2). While Mochizuki et al. does not appear to exemplify a formula (1) compound where the combination of variables and groups were selected the same as recited instant compounds #60, 77, 132, 133, and 135, Mochizuki et al. clearly teaches definitions for the formula 1 that are the same as recited for the specific instant compounds. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form a compound of the reference as discussed above wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a formula (1) compound for a light emitting device within the disclosure of Mochizuki et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding device claim 9, Mochizuki et al. teaches using compounds of general formula (1) in a layer of a light emitting device between an anode and a cathode (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any formula 1 compound for use in a layer of the taught device structure, because the formula 1 compounds are taught for the purpose of an organic layer. One would expect to achieve an operational, layered device structure using a formula 1 compound as discussed above with respect to claim 1 with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 10-13, the teaching of a formula 1 compound in a layer between an anode and a cathode meets the recited device layer structure limitations. Furthermore, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied on (see In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 14, a device may be used within electronic devices such as home appliances (see par. 291).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The office maintains the formula (1) taught by Mochizuki et al. defines groups that are the same as groups within the specific compounds as claimed. Applicant argues devices formed using specifically claimed compounds #60, 77, 132, 133, and 135 of Table 3 are unexpectedly superior to a comparative device using compound #58 (example 32), which applicant states is similar to a compound disclosed in Mochizuki. Instant compound #58 is the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
158
136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Instant #58).
The office submits above instant compound #58 does not represent the fair teachings of Mochizuki and is not identical to a compound in Mochizuki. While at least Mochizuki compound “1-1” has two biphenyl groups (and para linking), the compound is only one among several taught compounds (see Mochizuki Figure 1) and Mochizuki does not require there be two biphenyl. Bulkier-type aromatic groups and substituted aromatic groups are explicitly taught with respect to Mochizuki Ar1 and Ar2 groups (see groups within compounds in Figures and par. 93). With respect to comparing instant #58 to the currently recited compounds, #60 has a phenyl-naphthyl in place of a biphenyl, but Mochizuki does not require the Ar1 and Ar2 be selected the same and Mochizuki clearly teaches substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group for Ar1 and/or Ar2 (see par. 34, page 3 top left). Mochizuki expressly teaches in par. 93 a favorable substituent group upon a phenyl is naphthyl group. It is noted that #77, 132, 133, and 135 are not directly comparable to compound #58 as multiple groups are changed from #58 and it is unclear that selection of the phenyl-naphthyl group provides improved properties.
The teachings of Mochizuki et al. are not limited to a single compound the same as instant #58. Accordingly, the comparison is not considered commensurate with the scope of teachings by Mochizuki et al. The office submits a clear showing of unexpected results sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection has not been demonstrated. Further it is noted that examples listed in Table 3 are directed to device structures with the compounds specifically in an electron blocking layer combined with other specific layers contributing to the overall device life. None of the claims are as specific in scope as the device structures of Table 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights