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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on November 21, 2025.
Claim 9 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed November 21, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Park does not specifically disclose the structure of a compound comprising the claimed features and that compound T and compound Z, cited by the Examiner, and that both compounds have different structures from claimed Chemical Formula 1. Applicant argues that Park does not provide any motivation for a skilled artisan to modify either compound T or compound Z to arrive at the claimed polymer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection below, Formula Ia of Park encompasses polymers, including those claimed. The structures of Park explicitly taught require minor modifications, allowed by the definitions of Formula Ia to arrive at the claimed compound. The teachings of Park are not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that as demonstrated by Table 2 in the instant specification, by using the polymer, resulting devices had lower driving voltage, and better efficiency, compared to the comparative polymer, which is Compound T of Park. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data in the table is not commensurate in scope with the claims for at least the reasons that the data provided is for the use of the compound in a device, whereas the claims are directed to a polymer only. Examiner also notes that in the Table, the polymer is provided in a particular layer (the hole transport layer), with a particular dopant and host compound in the light emitting layer, none of which are required by the claims as currently presented.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 18 of copending Application No. 18/698883 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compounds in claim 15 in the ‘883 application read on Chemical Formula 1 in the instant application. Claims 17 and 18 in the ‘883 application define second and terminal units that are the same as compounds of Chemical Formula 2 and 3 in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 – 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20130087779A1).
As per claims 1, 3 – 8, Park teaches:
A polymer comprising a repeating unit represented by the following Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
276
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Park teaches compounds of Formula Ia
PNG
media_image2.png
104
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0141]), wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula b
PNG
media_image3.png
88
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0143]). A specific compound within the scope of Formula Ia taught by Park is compound T
PNG
media_image4.png
396
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. While compound T does not contain the claimed R4 or R5 substituents, the definitions for R7 in Formula Ia allow for those substituents and Park teaches compounds such as compound Z, wherein there are methyl substitutions in the claimed R4 position
PNG
media_image5.png
336
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify compound T to include methyl groups in the claimed R4 position as shown in Compound Z. Furthermore, in the definition for i, i is selected to be an integer from 0 – 4, so it would have been obvious to include two methyl groups on each of the rings as claimed. When compound T is modified to include two methyl groups on each of the rings directly bonded to the nitrogen atom in the biphenylene branch, the resulting compound reads on the claimed compound wherein L is an unsubstituted C12 arylene, namely a biphenyl group as required by claim 3 and represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
52
140
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 4; R1 is an unsubstituted C6 alkyl, namely a straight chain hexyl as required by claim 5; R2 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl, namely a methyl as required by claim 6; R3 is an unsubstituted C3 alkyl, namely a propyl as required by claim 7; R4 is an unsubtituted C1 alkyl, namely a methyl group as required by claim 8 and R5 are not present.)
Park includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Park being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of polymeric hole transport materials able to be formed via continuous coating in electronic devices ([0011]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 2 and 9, Park does not limit the bonding of the substituents on the ring directly bonded to the nitrogen atom in the biphenylene branch, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select positions of the ring, resulting in a compound of Chemical Formula 1’
PNG
media_image7.png
260
418
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and specifically a compound represented by
PNG
media_image8.png
252
472
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 9, because there are a limited, finite number of options for substituents on that ring.
Park includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Park being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of polymeric hole transport materials able to be formed via continuous coating in electronic devices ([0011]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 17, Park teaches:
Wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 3,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol (In [0216 – 0217], Park teaches Example polymers with molecular weights ranging from 140,399 – 1,058,617.)
As per claim 18, Park teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode that is disposed opposite to the anode, a light emitting layer that is provided between the anode and the cathode, a hole transport layer that is provided between the anode and the light emitting layer ([0165]: “Fig. 2 is an exemplary electronic device, an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display that includes at least two organic active layers positions between two electrical contact layers. The electronic device 100 includes one or more layers 120 and 130 to facilitate the injection of holes from the anode layer 110 into the emissive layer 140. In general, when two layers are present, the layer 120 adjacent the anode is called the hole injection layer, sometimes called a buffer layer. The layer 130 adjacent to the emissive layer is called the hole transport layer. An optional electron transport layer 150 is located between the emissive layer 140 and a cathode layer 160.”)
Wherein the hole transport layer comprises the polymer as set forth in claim 1 ([0188]: “In some embodiments, the hole transport layer consists essentially of a material having Formula I or Formula I’.”)
Park teaches an anode, a cathode, and an hole transport layer and that the compound is in the hole transport layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Park as Park demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 – 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20130087779A1) as applied to claims 1 – 9, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Radu (US20160329497A1).
As per claims 10 – 16, 19 and 20, Park does not teach:
Wherein the polymer further comprises a repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image9.png
62
156
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, wherein the repeating unit of Chemical Formula 2 is contained in an amount of 10 to 50 moles based on 100 moles of the repeating unit of Chemical Formula 1
Wherein the polymer further comprises a terminal group represented by Chemical Formula 3
PNG
media_image10.png
48
148
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein the repeating unit of Chemical Formula 3 is contained in an amount of 20 to 65 moles based on 100 moles of the repeating unit of Chemical Formula 1
Radu teaches a copolymer useful as a hole transporting compound of Formula I
PNG
media_image11.png
30
242
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, wherein A is a monomeric unit containing at least one triaryl amine group (Abstract). Radu teaches that the monomeric unit containing at least one triaryl amine group can be of Formula III-b, which is structurally similar to the compounds of Park
PNG
media_image12.png
112
442
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0095]). Unit B’ of the copolymer is a monomeric unit having at least three points of attachment in the copolymer (Abstract). Representative compounds of unit B’ include compound B1
PNG
media_image13.png
220
298
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0198]). Unit E is shown as a terminal group and is defined as being selected from among a crosslinkable group (Abstract). Representative compounds of unit E include compound E1
PNG
media_image14.png
90
210
media_image14.png
Greyscale
([0221]). Radu teaches representative copolymers wherein a monomeric unit containing at least one triaryl amine group that is structurally similar to those taught by Park is included in a copolymer with compound B1 and E1, as in Copolymer Type 3
PNG
media_image15.png
224
446
media_image15.png
Greyscale
([0254]). Unit B reads on the claimed Formula 2 wherein L’ is an unsubstituted C6 arylene, namely phenylene as required by claim 11; Z is an n-valent unsubstituted C6 aromatic ring, namely a trivalent benzene as required by claim 12; n is 3. The compound is the same as
PNG
media_image16.png
178
178
media_image16.png
Greyscale
in claim 13. Unit E reads on Chemical Formula 3 wherein Ar is a substituted C6 aryl, wherein the group is substituted with a photocurable group as required by claim 15 and is the same as
PNG
media_image17.png
50
106
media_image17.png
Greyscale
in claim 16. Radu teaches that the repeating unit A may be present in an amount greater than 0.50 of the total weight of the copolymer ([0222]), repeating unit B may be present in an amount between 0.01 – 0.5 ([0227]), and terminal group E is present in an amount between 0.05 – 0.60 ([0246]). The ratios of these compounds overlap with the claimed amounts of each component.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer of Park to include the claimed repeating unit and the claimed terminal group in the amounts claimed because Park teaches that arylamine polymers containing units of Formula 1 are suitable for use as polymers in hole transport layers, and Radu teaches that the units may be included in copolymers for use in hole transport layers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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