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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 16, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to the RCE filed April 16, 2026 and the amendment filed March 27, 2026, which amends claims 1, 11, and 18. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-10, 18, 19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Begley et al (US 2007/0092759) as set forth in the Office action mailed January 27, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2, 11, 13-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begley et al (US 2007/0092759) as set forth in the Office action mailed January 27, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-3, 9-12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0148995) in view of Begley et al (US 2007/0092759) as set forth in the Office action mailed January 27, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-10, 17, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Begley et al (US 2010/0019671) (hereafter “Begley”).
Regarding claims 1, 7-10, 17, 18, and 23, Begley teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transporting layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0052]). Begley teaches that the light emitting layer emits blue light (paragraph [0185]). Begley teaches that the electron transporting layer is 35 nm thick, has a refractive index of 1.8 or less, and is composed of
PNG
media_image1.png
109
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
115
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0024] and [0186] [0287], and [0296]).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begley et al (US 2010/0019671) (hereafter “Begley”) as applied to claims 1, 5, 7-10, 17, 18, and 23 above.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 13-16, Begley teaches that
PNG
media_image1.png
109
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
115
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
can be mixed with
PNG
media_image3.png
231
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in the electron transporting layer (paragraphs [0024]-[0033], [0186] [0287], and [0296]).
Begley does not specifically teach where
PNG
media_image1.png
109
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
115
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is mixed with a compound that meets applicant’s formula 2 or 3.
Begley teaches that
PNG
media_image4.png
163
317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
can be used as the compound mixed with
PNG
media_image1.png
109
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
115
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in the electron transporting layer (paragraphs [0024]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substituted
PNG
media_image4.png
163
317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
for
PNG
media_image3.png
231
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in the electron transporting layer in the device Begley. The substation would have been one preferred compound for another preferred compound and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the device is act in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0148995) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Begley et al (US 2010/0019671) (hereafter “Begley”).
Regarding clams 1-3, 9-12, 14, 16, 18, and 19, Kim teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0107]). Kim teaches that the light emitting layer comprises blue light emitting dopant (paragraph [0107). Kim teaches that the electron transporting layer is composed of the following compound,
PNG
media_image5.png
232
315
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
232
292
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image7.png
357
308
media_image7.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0047], and [0107]-[0114]).
Kim does not teach where the electron transporting layer further comprises a lithium complex.
Begley teaches electron transporting layers for use in electroluminescent devices (paragraphs [paragraphs [0024] and [0186] [0287], and [0296]). Begley teaches that when
PNG
media_image1.png
109
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
115
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is mixed with an organic electron transporting material in the electron transporting layer, the device has a lower voltage and improved efficiency (paragraphs [0181]-[0188], Table 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Kim to the lithium complex of Begley to the electron transporting layer of Kim. The motivation would have been to lower the voltage of the device and improve the efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 17, 19, 20, and 22 are 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.
The prior art fails to teach or make obvious modify the compounds of Begley, such as
PNG
media_image1.png
109
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
115
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, with a methyl group to arrive at the applicant’s claimed invention. Begley teaches other compounds that meet the applicant’s claimed general formula 1, but does not teach or make obvious modifying the compounds to arrive at the applicant’s claimed compounds comprising an alkyl group at as specific position on the compound. Claims 3, 4, 6, 17, 19, 20, and 22 comprise allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights