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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 18, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on May 18, 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 5, 6, 8 – 13 and 17 – 20 have been canceled previously.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 14 – 16, 21 and 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 18, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 4, 7 and 14 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mun as set forth in the office action filed March 19, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 4, 7, 14 – 16, 21 and 22 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.
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 – 4 and 6 – 10 of copending Application No. 17/925619 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the group of Formula 2-3 in claim 4 of the instant application is the same as Formula 2-3 in claim 3 of the ‘619 application. The dopant of claim 1 in the instant application is the same formula as the formulas in claim 9 of the ‘619 application. The anthracene host required in the instant application is the same as the anthracene host in claim 10 of the ‘619 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 – 4, 7, 14 – 16, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham (KR20190003329A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Suh (WO2019164331A1, using US20210184121A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 1 – 4 and 21, Ham teaches:
An organic electroluminescence device, between an anode and a cathode comprising, at least a first hole transport layer, a second hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, and an electron transport layer in this order from the anode side ([0110]: “The organic light-emitting device can be stacked in the following order from the bottom: anode (hole injection electrode (1000))/hole injection layer (200)/hole transport layer (300)/light-emitting layer (400)/electron transport layer (500)/electron injection layer (600)/cathode (electron injection electrode (2000)).” The claimed first and second hole transport layers are interpreted as two sublayers of the hole transport layer taught by Ham.)
Wherein the second hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by general formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
192
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ham teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
188
252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A particular compound taught by Ham is compound 4
PNG
media_image3.png
108
96
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein A represents a group represented by general formula 2-1
PNG
media_image4.png
162
226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein n is an integer of 0 so that R1 does not exist; L1 is a divalent group which is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon, m is an integer of 1, Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aromatic group; B and C represent a substituted aromatic group and an unsubstituted aromatic group, respectively. This compound is represented by general formula 2-2 as required by claim 2, and general formulae 2-3 and 2-4 in claims 3 and 4 wherein p represents 0. The compound contains
PNG
media_image5.png
160
174
media_image5.png
Greyscale
as required by claim 21. & [0019]: “The compound of the present invention can increase hole injection and transport characteristics when used as a hole transport layer (HTL)”)
In the Examples Ham teaches the emission layer contains a blue light-emitting dopant
PNG
media_image6.png
80
152
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. Ham does not teach:
Wherein the blue light-emitting dopant is a compound represented by general formula (3-1)
PNG
media_image7.png
210
218
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Suh teaches OLED devices with similar blue light emission anthracene based host materials,
PNG
media_image8.png
270
322
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, and similar triarylamine hole transport layer materials
PNG
media_image9.png
258
328
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0178]). Suh teaches that the devices contain dopants such as
PNG
media_image10.png
174
318
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula 3-1 wherein Q1 and Q3 are unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbons and Q2 is a substituted aromatic heterocyclic ring; X2 represents B; Y1 represents O, and Y2 and Y3 represent N-R7 wherein R7 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the blue dopant of Ham with the blue dopant of Suh, which reads on the claimed formula because both compounds are taught to be functionally equivalent blue light dopants for use with anthracene based host materials and triarylamine hole transport layers.
As per claims 7 and 14 – 16, Ham teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer contains an anthracene derivative having an anthracene backbone (In the Example devices, as described in [0222], BH01 was used as the host material in the light emitting layer
PNG
media_image11.png
76
120
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.)
As per claim 22, the only difference between Compound 4 of Ham and claimed compound
PNG
media_image12.png
130
260
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is the biphenylene linker group and the phenyl substituents off of the fluorenyl group. However, in Formula 1 of Ham, L is defined to include biphenylene ([0043]) and R is defined to include phenyl ([0044]). 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 swap the L and R groups of Compound 4 of Ham to include a biphenylene and a phenyl group as allowed by the claims and arrive at the claimed compound.
Ham includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ham 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 high efficiency ([0019]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 14 – 16, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara (US20210210693A1) in view of Suh (WO2019164331A1, using US20210184121A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 1 – 4, 21 and 22, Uehara teaches:
An organic electroluminescence device, between an anode and a cathode comprising, at least a first hole transport layer, a second hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, and an electron transport layer in this order from the anode side ([0075]: “The organic EL device of the present invention may have a structure in which an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode are sequentially formed on a substrate.” The claimed first hole transport layer is interpreted as the hole injection layer and the claimed second hole transport layer is interpreted as the hole transport layer.)
Wherein the second hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by general formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
192
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Uehara teaches compounds of Formula A-1
PNG
media_image13.png
72
214
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0027]). A particular compound taught by Uehara is Compound 4
PNG
media_image14.png
344
314
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein A is a group of general formula (2-1), B and C are substituted aromatic hydrocarbon groups. This compound is represented by general formula 2-2 as required by claim 2, and general formulae 2-3 and 2-4 in claims 3 and 4 wherein p represents 0. The compound contains
PNG
media_image5.png
160
174
media_image5.png
Greyscale
as required by claim 21. This compound is the same as
PNG
media_image15.png
166
190
media_image15.png
Greyscale
in claim 22. & [0066]: “The compound having a triarylamine structure and being represented by the structural formula (A-1) and being suitable for use in an organic EL device of the present invention can be used as the materials of… a hole transport layer… of the organic EL device.”)
Uehara teaches blue dopant materials in the emission layer of the device, such as
PNG
media_image16.png
326
324
media_image16.png
Greyscale
used with anthracene based host materials, such as
PNG
media_image17.png
270
252
media_image17.png
Greyscale
. Uehara does not teach:
Wherein the blue light-emitting dopant is a compound represented by general formula (3-1)
PNG
media_image7.png
210
218
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Suh teaches OLED devices with similar blue light emission anthracene based host materials,
PNG
media_image8.png
270
322
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, and similar triarylamine hole transport layer materials
PNG
media_image9.png
258
328
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0178]). Suh teaches that the devices contain dopants such as
PNG
media_image10.png
174
318
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula 3-1 wherein Q1 and Q3 are unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbons and Q2 is a substituted aromatic heterocyclic ring; X2 represents B; Y1 represents O, and Y2 and Y3 represent N-R7 wherein R7 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the blue dopant of Uehara with the blue dopant of Suh, which reads on the claimed formula because both compounds are taught to be functionally equivalent blue light dopants for use with anthracene based host materials and triarylamine hole transport layers.
As per claims 7 and 14 – 16, Uehara teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer contains an anthracene derivative having an anthracene backbone (In the Example devices, as described in [0150], EMH-1 was used as the host material in the light emitting layer
PNG
media_image17.png
270
252
media_image17.png
Greyscale
.)
Claims 1 – 3, 7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (US20220320455A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, Qiu teaches:
An organic electroluminescence device, between an anode and a cathode comprising, at least a first hole transport layer, a second hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, and an electron transport layer in this order from the anode side ([0084]: “As shown in FIG. 6, the OLED includes an anode 10, a cathode 90, and an organic emitting layer disposed between the anode 10 and the cathode 90. In an exemplary embodiment, the organic light emitting layer may include a hole transport layer 30, an electron block layer 40, an emitting layer 50, and a hole block layer 60 which are stacked, the hole transport layer 30 and the electron block layer 40 are disposed between the anode 10 and the emitting layer 50, and the hole block layer 60 is disposed between the emitting layer 50 and the cathode 90.” The claimed first hole transport layer is interpreted as the hole transport layer and the claimed second hole transport layer is interpreted as the electron block layer.)
Wherein the second hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by general formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
192
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(In [0135], Qiu teaches that the electron block layer can include a compound of Formula 4-1-3
PNG
media_image18.png
304
330
media_image18.png
Greyscale
which reads on the claimed Formula wherein C is a monovalent group of the general formula (2-1), wherein L is a divalent unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon, m is 1; Ar1, Ar2 and Rn are all an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon and n is 3; B is an unsubstituted aromatic heterocyclic group and C is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group. The compound is represented by general formula (2-2) in claim 2 and general formula (2-3) in claim 3 where p is 0.)
Wherein the blue light-emitting dopant is a compound represented by general formula (3-1)
PNG
media_image7.png
210
218
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(In the Examples, as described in [0170], compound 2-4 was used as the blue light dopant
PNG
media_image19.png
150
184
media_image19.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Q1 and Q2 represent an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon; Q3 represents a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon; X is B; Y1 is S; Y2 and Y3 are N-R4 wherein R4 is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group.)
Qiu teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer with a condensed polycyclic heteroaromatic blue dopant as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Qiu as Qiu demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 7, 14 and 15, Qiu teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer contains an anthracene derivative having an anthracene backbone (In the Example devices, as described in [0169], the following compound was used as the host material in the light emitting layer
PNG
media_image20.png
268
302
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights