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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/08/2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2016/0351816) (Kim).
In reference to claims 1, 3, and 5-7, Kim teaches a compound of H-146 as shown below that reads on the claimed materials.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on a compound of formula A wherein m is 1, n is 1, L is a single bond, R7 is a bond to L, R1 to R2, R4 to R5, and R7 to R8 are each hydrogen, R3 is a substituted aryl, HAr is a group of structural formula 1, Y is C(CH3)2, X is C(CH3)2, R13 is a bonded to L, and R11 to R12 and R14 to R20 are each hydrogen.
For Claim 3: Reads on n is 1 and m is 1.
For Claim 5: Reads on a single bond.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein X and Y are C(CH3)2.
For Claim 7: Reads on methyl.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 2, 8 and 10- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2016/0351816) (Kim).
In reference to claims 2 and 8, Kim teaches a H-146 as shown above.
PNG
media_image2.png
188
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound H-146 is a positional isomer of the instantly claimed material, wherein the phenanthroline is bonded to the polycyclic ring system at different positions. It is noted that compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound presently claimed, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 10-11, 15, and 17-18, Kim teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the compound is used in an organic EL device comprising an organic layer between an anode and a cathode with several layers including emission layers, hole transport layers, electron transport layers etc. wherein the emission layer includes a host and dopant (Kim [0009] [0295] [0367] [0348]). Lee further teaches that the layers are deposited by wet coating or dry coating methods (Kim [0441]).
While Kim does not exemplify a device with the specific configuration and composition, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used the materials taught by Kim in the device structures taught by Kim.
It is noted that Kim may not use the same names of layers as those instantly claimed however the layers meet all positional and compositional requirements of those claimed.
Claims 12-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2015/0349270) (Kim) in view of Liao et al (US 2006/0040132) (Liao).
In reference to claims 12-14, 16 and 19, Kim teaches the device as described above for claim 10 and further teaches that the device can comprise additional layers. Kim does not expressly teach that the device comprises additional emitting layers with the claimed p type and n type charge generation layers between them or is used in display panel.
With respect to the difference, Liao teaches, in analogous art, a tandem OLED device structure comprising a plurality of light emitting layers with n and p type charge generating layers in between (Liao see figs 3, 8) and teaches that the N-type layers comprise a host and a dopant wherein the hosts are phenanthroline derivatives (Liao [0115]). Liao further teaches that the use of such a device structure is used in a flat display and results in a device with high luminance and brightness, improved lifetime, improved color stability with simple fabrication steps (Liao[0003] [0008] to [0020]).
In light of the motivation of using the tandem device structure as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the tandem device structure as described by Liao in order to prepare a device with high luminance and brightness, improved lifetime, improved color stability with simple fabrication steps and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claim 9 is drawn to specific compounds of formula 1. A search of the prior art did not identify these materials.
The closest prior art identified is Kim et al (US 2015/0349270) (Kim). Kim teaches compounds within the formula 1 but does not specifically teach the instantly claimed materials of claim 9. None of the teachings of Kim or of the prior art as a whole provide sufficiently specific motivation to modify the compounds of Kim to arrive at the compounds of claim 9.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights