DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 11/17/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/28/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to the drawings and the disclosure (in regards to the figure) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/28/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 4 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/28/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (WO 2017/052261 A1) in view of Heo et al. (WO 2019/004790 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/28/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 1-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (WO 2017/052261 A1) in view of Heo et al. (WO 2019/004790 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/28/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (WO 2017/052261 A1) in view of Heo et al. (WO 2019/004790 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2018/0090688 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2017/052261 A1 (herein referred to as “Cha et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2020/0048230 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2019/004790 A1 (herein referred to as “Heo et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Cha et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device (11) (light emitting device):
PNG
media_image1.png
338
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2) comprising substrate (20), anode (30), hole-injecting layer (60), hole-transporting layer (70), light-emitting layer (80), electron-transporting layer (40), electron-injecting layer (90), and cathode (50) ([0084], [0091]); the light-emitting layer comprises dopant and the following compound (as host) ([0099]):
PNG
media_image2.png
184
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 33; [0121]) such that L101 = direct bond, L102 = unsubstituted arylene group (phenylene), Ar101-102 = unsubstituted aryl group (naphthyl), and R101-108 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2. Cha et al. discloses the existence of an electron-blocking layer directly interposed between the light-emitting layer and the hole-transporting layer, as well as a hole-blocking layer ([0139], [0193]-[0195]); the electron-blocking layer (or the hole-transporting layer) (first organic material layer) comprises the following compound ([0023], [0085]-[0086]):
PNG
media_image3.png
332
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 5; [0076]) such that R1-16 = hydrogen, L1-2 = direct bond, and Ar1-2 = unsubstituted aryl group (biphenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1; n1 = 0 of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-1. However, Cha et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 3.
Heo et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
224
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 12) such that Z = O, m1-4 = 0, Ar201 = Ar203 = hydrogen, Ar202 = -L201-CN (with L201 = phenylene), and Ar204 = Applicant’s Chemical Formula A-1 (with L202 = direct bond, X1-3 = N, and Y1-2 = phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 3 and 3-3. Heo et al. discloses its inventive compounds to comprise either the hole-blocking layer (which lies directly interposed between the light-emitting layer and the electron-transporting layer) or the electron control layer (i.e., electron-transporting layer) ([0138], [0146]-[0147]), the use of which results in a device with enhanced efficiency and lifetime and lowered driving voltage ([0024]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the above compound as disclosed by Heo et al. into the hole-blocking and/or electron-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Cha et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Heo et al. which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with enhanced efficiency and lifetime and lowered driving voltage.
Response to Arguments
11. The Office has carefully reviewed the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.132 filed November 17, 2025.
12. The Applicant has argued on pages 25-27 for unexpected results in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection as set forth above. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the data is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. For instance, notice that the device Examples have only utilized three inventive compounds (HOST-1, HOST-2, and HOST-3) comprising the light-emitting layer which clearly does not represent the full scope of Chemical Formula 2 as recited in Claim 1, nor even the narrowed scope of compounds as recited in Claim 5 which recites compounds such as the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
152
80
media_image5.png
Greyscale
with properties which cannot be reasonably extrapolated from any one of HOST-1, HOST-2, and HOST-3. It should be noted that the problems with the data as mentioned above are not exhaustive, as the invention as recited in Claim 1 recites two additional and independent parameters (compounds corresponding to Chemical Formulae 1 and 3) which must be also be tested (that are commensurate with the full scope of the claims) for each representative compound of Chemical Formula 2.
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786