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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/24/2026 has been entered.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 102076958) (Kim).
In reference to claims 1-6, Kim teaches a compound of formula 4 as shown below (Kim [0153]),
PNG
media_image1.png
430
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 4, X1 and X2 are each hydrogen or deuterium, L1 and L2 are each a direct bond, R1 is a heteroaryl group (e.g. a dibenzofuran), L1 is a direct bond, L2 is a direct bond, L5 is phenylene, L6 is phenylene and R5 to R6 are each phenyl (Kim [0011] to [0020]; [0053]; [0047]).
Kim discloses the compound of formula 4 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula 4, X1 and X2 are each hydrogen or deuterium, L1 and L2 are each a direct bond, R1 is a heteroaryl group (e.g. a dibenzofuran), L1 is a direct bond, L2 is a direct bond, L5 is phenylene, L6 is phenylene and R5 to R6 are each phenyl. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 4 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on chemical formula 3 wherein R1 is dibenzofuran, L1 and L2 are each a direct bond, L5 and L6 are each phenylene, R5 and R6 are each phenyl, and X1 and X2 are each hydrogen or deuterium.
For Claim 3: Reads on phenyl or dibenzofuran.
For Claim 4: Reads on 10 to 100% deuterium.
For Claim 5: Reads on hydrogen or deuterium.
For Claim 6: Reads on e.g. compound 401.
In reference to claims 7-10, Kim teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that the compound is included in an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode and a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a charge generating layer, and wherein the compound is used in the hole transport layer. Kim further teaches that when the compound is used in a device it results in a device with reduced drive voltage, improved light efficiency and lifetime characteristics (Kim [0020] to [0021]).
While Kim does not exemplify a device with this configuration and material included, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application have prepared a device of Kim with the material of Kim with the anticipation that such a device would have reduced driving voltage, improved light efficiency and lifetime characteristics.
Note that while Kim does not name a layer “hole transport auxiliary layer” the name of the layer does not modify its structure or composition and therefore the layers of Kim meet the limitation of a hole transport auxiliary layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103 over Kim et al, Applicant first argues that Kim broadly defines R1 to encompass heteroaryl groups including dibenzofuran but that all compounds actually synthesized and evaluated in Kim are limited exclusively to aryl-based compounds having 20 or fewer carbon atoms. Applicant argues that Kim does provide any working example, experimental data, or technical guidance demonstrating the properties or effects of heteroaryl-containing compounds falling within its generic definition and that Kim therefore fails to provide motivation or suggestion to modify the heteroaryl substituents of Kim to arrive at the compounds instantly claimed.
This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. It may be true that Kim does not exemplify a compound of the instant claimed genus. However, such an example would only be necessary for a rejection under 35 USC 102. Further, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972). Further, there is no need for modification of a compound of Kim as Kim specifically teaches wherein R1 is heteroaryl. Instead, selection from Markush groups is necessary to arrive at any material of Kim, just as arriving at any material of the instant formula 1 requires the selection from Markush groups. In the absence of unexpected results, the selection of different substituents from among those taught by Kim would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application.
Applicant next argues that the instantly claimed materials give rise to unexpected results. As evidence of this, Applicant points to data submitted as a declaration under 37 CFR 1.1.32. It is noted that Applicant has also provided examples in the instant specification in tables 6 and 7. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in driving voltage, efficiency and device lifetime, the specification and declaration have provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables. Indeed, the data presented in the declaration does not sufficiently describe the experiments summarized therein. The declaration says “all devices were fabricated and tested using the same device structure as described in the specification of the present application” but is not clear on which device structure. For example, the instant specification describes both example 1 and example 22 as comprising compound 2, giving driving voltages of 4.20 and 4.30 V whereas the same material in the declaration has a driving voltage of 4.18 V. It is unclear what device structure is used in the declaration and how the data differs from both of the experiments for the same material as described in the specification. This lack of description and clear variability in results coupled with a lack of statistical analysis makes the data impossible to interpret.
Second, the data presented does not appear to demonstrate a result that is actually unexpected. Initially, the data presented fail to demonstrate an improvement in device lifetime as attested by Applicant. Of the four compounds presented in the declaration, only 1 shows a higher lifetime than the comparative compounds and the difference is likely within the margin of error in measurement (58 vs 57). Further, the differences in driving voltage and efficiency does not appear to be unexpected. Kim provides a large number of device examples as described therein that also show improvements driving voltage and efficiency are improved vs a standard of NPB. Applicant has also presented data in the specification (e.g. table 6) demonstrating improvements over NPB. Kim reports reductions in driving vorlage of up to 22% (Kim example 19) compared to NPB while the best improvement seen in table 6 of the instant spec is 20% compared to NPB (Instant example 8). Similarly, Kim shows an improvement in efficiency of up to 27% (Kim example 22) compared to NPB while the best improvement seen in table 6 of the instant spec is 16% compared to NPB (Instant example 17). The effects reported in the declaration are even smaller when compared to NPB. Taken together, the data presented show that the claimed compounds show device properties that are on par with what would have been expected given the disclosure of Kim. There is no evidence that the selection of specific substituents from among those disclosed by Kim gives rise to any unexpected improvements in device properties.
Third, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, applicant argues that the specific groups claimed at positions R1 or R2 of the instantly claimed formulae 2 and 3 are what gives rise to unexpected results. However, the data presented in the declaration only corresponds to wherein R1 or R2 is an unsubstituted dibenzofuran whereas a large number of possible substituted or unsubstituted groups are given as options for these groups with exceptionally broad definitions for what qualifies as a substituent being listed in the instant specification at pages 10-11. Applicant is arguing that the claimed R1 or R2 groups being selected from a narrow list is what gives rise to unexpected results yet the number of structures claimed for either R1 or R2 alone is more than 10100 and is therefore not narrow and the resultant structures would not be expected to all behave similarly to what is exemplified in the experiments. As Applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by Kim, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
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