DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 10-1695270) in view of Howard et al. (US 2002/0021088 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/09/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 10-1695270) in view of Howard et al. (US 2002/0021088 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/09/26 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 10-1695270) in view of Howard et al. (US 2002/0021088 A1).
Jeong et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) for the construction of displays comprising the following layers: substrate, anode (first electrode), hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, electron-blocking layer, light-emitting layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, electron-injecting layer, and cathode (second electrode) (wherein the hole-injecting and electron-blocking layers are optionally present) ([0002], [0102]); its inventive compounds such as the one shown below comprise the hole-transporting layer ([0012], [0103]):
PNG
media_image1.png
140
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 45) such that c1 = 1, X1 = single bond, ring comprising Ar11 = Applicant’s Formula Ar11-2 (with a113 = 0 and R11a = Applicant’s Formula 2 (with b21-23 = 0 and R23 = R10a-substituted C12 heterocyclic group (phenyl-substituted carbazolyl)), Ar12-15 = C6 carbocyclic group (benzene), and a12-15 = 0 of Applicant’s Formula 1. Jeong et al. further discloses that its inventive compounds are of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
214
222
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0014]) where at least one of R1-18 is the following group ([0018]:
PNG
media_image3.png
72
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0019]). However, Jeong et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the compounds as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify 164 as disclosed by Jeong et al. (above) such that R22 = Applicant’s Formula 3-1B (with X31 = N(Z31a) (with Z31a = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl)) and a33-34 = 0) (corresponds to 3 as recited in Claim 17). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the connection point of the carbazolyl group to the nitrogen (to an adjacent position), producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; further motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves selection of one possible embodiment from a highly finite list as envisioned from the scope of Jeong et al.’s general formula (in regards to the manner of connection of the Ar1 or Ar2 group to the nitrogen), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. However, Jeong et al. does not explicitly disclose a first electrode as recited in Claim 1.
Howard et al. discloses anodes for use in an organic EL device having improved stability and longer lifetime (Abstract); the anode comprises a first layer and a stabilizing second layer ([0005]). The first layer comprises materials such as metals including gold or platinum, while the second layer comprises materials such as an oxide of nickel (Ni) ([0041]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to utilize the material as disclosed by Howard et al. as anode material for the organic EL device as disclosed by Jeong et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Howard et al., which is directed to anodes for an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with improved stability and longer lifetime.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (KR 10-1695270) in view of Howard et al. (US 2002/0021088 A1) as applied above and in further view of Nakamura (US 2006/0113905 A1).
Jeong et al. in view of Howard et al. discloses the electronic apparatus of Claim 18 as shown above. Jeong et al. discloses the use of organic electroluminescent (EL) devices (OLEDs) for the construction of a wide array of devices, including flat panel displays ([0002]). However, Jeong et al. in view of Howard et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific electronic apparatus as recited in the claims.
Nakamura discloses a method of display device construction utilizing organic EL devices which can suppress degradation and realize high display quality and long lifetime (Abstract; [0008]). The construction comprises a thin-film transistor (20) comprising a drain electrode (20D) electrically connected to the anode (410) of an organic EL device (40); a polarizer plate PL further exists on the display to suppress ambient light reflection. It would have been obvious to utilize the method as disclosed by Nakamura for the construction of displays comprising the organic EL device as disclosed by Jeong et al. in view of Howard et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Nakamura, which is directed to a known and viable method of display device construction utilizing OLEDs, the use of which results in the suppression of degradation and high display quality and long lifetime.
Response to Arguments
10. The Applicant has argued on pages 21-22 for unexpected results as Claim 1 has been amended to “reflect the heterocyclic compounds of the specific examples that exhibit superior effects” (as presumably shown in Table 1 of the present Specification). Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is the position of the Office that the data is unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. For instance, notice the rather narrow range of compounds tested by the Applicant (Compounds 1-5), particularly in contrast to the rather broad scope of Applicant’s Formula 1 which allows X1 to be various divalent linkages beside a single bond (which has been the only species tested in the data), as well as the scope of R11a.
Conclusion
11. 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