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 .
The amendment of 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2, 21, 46, and 51 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 16–18, 38–41, 43, 47, and 52 have been amended.
Claims 53 and 54 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 5, 13, 16–18, 38–45, 47, and 52–54 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 2 of the reply filed 04/13/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement set forth in the Office Action of 01/13/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claim 1 has been amended to define the functional group of R1, while claim 21 was canceled rendering the rejection moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 42, 43, 46, and 47 set forth in the Office Action of 01/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 21, 38, 39, 40, 51, and 52 set forth in the Office Action of 01/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 16–18 set forth in the Office Action of 01/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 13, 41, 44, and 45 set forth in the Office Action of 01/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Claim 1 and the first aromatic compound (see arguments starting on page 9), the Examiner asserted that trifluoromethylbenzoic acid reads on Applicant’s first aromatic compound wherein the functional group R1 is a carboxyl group and the functional group R2 is a trifluoromethyl group (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
216
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that “Thus, Jin describes an aromatic compound including fluorine, which is an example of a halogen group. Moreover, such halogen group is not directly bonded to a benzene ring. As such, Jin does not describe that the aromatic compound is directly bonded to the benzene ring.”
Firstly, the assertion of the aromatic compound being directly bonded to a benzene ring is not described in the unamended or amened claim 1. Instead, the unamended and amended claim 1 recite “an aromatic ring to which each of the functional group R1 and the functional group R2 bonds.” There is no mention of a benzene ring. Therefore, the argument that Jin does not describe that the aromatic compound is directly bonded to the benzene ring is moot.
Next, the unamended and amended claim 1 recite “a functional group R2 containing at an end at least one [of] … a halogen group”. A trifluoromethyl group is a functional group which contains at an end three fluorine atoms (halogen groups). Additionally, the trifluoromethyl group (functional group R2) is directly bonded to the aromatic ring. Therefore, trifluoromethylbenzoic acid meets the limitations of Applicant’s unamended and amended claim 1. Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments of claims 5, 13, and 16–18 which depend on independent claim 1 do not overcome the rejections set forth in the previous office action.
Regarding Claim 38 and the third organic layer including a first compound (see arguments starting on page 11), Applicant argues that Jin 1 wherein “the functional group R6” does not contain at least one of the eight skeletons of carbazole, tetracyano, thiophene, fluorine, quinonediimide, phthalocyanine, triphenylene, or phenylnaphthalene, as recited in amended independent claim 38. Applicant amended claim 38 to preclude triallylamine, thereby overcoming the Examiner’s interpretation of R6 being a triphenylamine in Jin 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
121
209
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
247
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
273
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Jin 1 also contains fluorine which is one of the eight skeletons listed. A revised rejection using the same prior art of Jin 1 wherein R6 has one skeleton of fluorine reads on Applicant’s amended claim 38. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 38 are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments of claims 39–45, 47, 52 depending on independent claim 38 do not overcome the rejections set forth in the previous office action.
As noted above, all of the rejections of the claims set forth in the previous office action are sustained since the Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejections on the record. Applicant added new claims 53 and 54 which are fully considered below. Additionally, Applicant added new matter to the amendment of claim 1 (discussed below). The rejections under Jin are reproduced in single space below for clarity of the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite “when the functional group R2 contains a plurality of halogen groups, including the halogen group, the functional group R2 is directly bonded to the aromatic ring.” There is no support within the instant specification for this limitation. Specifically, there is no mention of R2 containing a plurality of halogen groups within the instant specification.
Claims 5, 13, 16–18, and 53 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 42, 43, 46, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (Pub.No.: US 2021/0234100 A1, provided within Applicants' IDS, hereafter Jin).
Regarding Claim 1, Jin teaches an OLED device comprising an anode, a first functional layer, a second functional layer, a light emitting layer, a third functional layer, and a cathode. The first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101] (shown below in Fig. 4 of Jin),
PNG
media_image5.png
628
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the organic molecule layer is comprised of trifluoromethylbenzoic acid [0084] (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
600
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Trifluoromethylbenzoic acid reads on Applicants’ limitation since it contains a carboxyl group, corresponding to Applicants’ R1, and a trifluoromethyl group, corresponding to Applicants’ R2, connected by an aromatic ring.
Regarding Claim 2, Jin teaches an OLED device as discussed above with trifluoromethylbenzoic acid as the aromatic compound [0084], which contains a carboxyl group.
Regarding Claim 5, Jin teaches an OLED device as discussed above with trifluoromethylbenzoic acid as the aromatic compound [0084], which reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 (shown below) wherein R1 is a carboxyl group and R2 is a trifluoromethyl group.
PNG
media_image7.png
109
141
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 42 and 43, Jin teaches a first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101].
Regarding Claims 46 and 47, Jin teaches a second functional layer includes poly-TPD (4-butyl-N,N-diphenylaniline homopolymer) and PVK (polyvinylcarbazole) [0101], which reads on Applicants’ limitation since PVK is a carbazole derivative.
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 21, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (Pub.No.: US 2021/0234100 A1).
Regarding Claims 21 and 38, Jin teaches an OLED device comprising an anode, a first functional layer, a second functional layer, a light emitting layer, a third functional layer, and a cathode. The first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101] (shown below in Fig. 4 of Jin). The second functional layer includes poly-TPD (4-butyl-N,N-diphenylaniline homopolymer) and PVK (polyvinylcarbazole) [0101].
PNG
media_image5.png
628
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jin further teaches that the organic molecule that makes up the organic molecule layer can be represented by structural formula (II), exemplified by Jin 1 (shown below) [0018] – [0019]
PNG
media_image2.png
121
209
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
247
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Q is a triphenylamine, R is a trifluoromethyl, and n is 1 or greater.
However, Jin does not teach an embodiment using Jin 1 as the organic molecule layer within an OLED device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jin 1, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified structures taught by Jin, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the organic layer bonded to an inorganic hole-injection layer of the OLED device of Jin and possessing the surface work function benefits which thereby increase the EQE and brightness of an OLED [0105] taught by Jin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional device structures using different embodied structures taught by Jin having the benefits taught by Jin in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
An OLED device, as modified above, using Jin 1 as the organic molecule layer reads on Applicants’ limitations of R5 contains a functional group capable of chemically bonding to the first inorganic hole-transport material (carboxyl group) and R6 being a functional group for transporting holes (triphenylamine).
Regarding Claims 39 and 40, An OLED device, as modified above, using Jin 1 as the organic molecule layer reads on Applicants’ limitations since Jin 1 contains a methyl at the end wherein one of the hydrogens is R7.
Regarding Claims 51 and 52, An OLED device, as modified above, using Jin 1 as the organic molecule layer reads on Applicants’ limitations of R5 contains a functional group capable of chemically bonding to the first inorganic hole-transport material (carboxyl group) and R6 being a functional group for transporting holes (triphenylamine).
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 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0234100 A1).
Trifluoromethylbenzoic acid is not listed as one of the first aromatic compounds in claim 53.
Trifluoromethylbenzoic acid is represented by Jin’s structural formula (I):
R–R0–(CH2)n–P, wherein R is CF3, R0 is a phenyl, n is 0 so CH2 is not present, and P is a carboxyl group [0009] – [0011]. Jin also teaches R may be selected from any one of CF3, F, CN, NO2, Cl, Br, and I [0011].
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Jin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Br for CF3, because Jin teaches the variable may suitably be selected as CF3, F, CN, NO2, Cl, Br, and I. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the organic molecule in the organic molecule layer of the OLED device of Jin and possess the benefits taught by Jin. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The OLED device comprising the modified version of structural formula (I) as described above reads on Applicant’s limitation since the organic molecule is 4-bromobenzoic acid (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
216
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
176
212
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2021/0234100 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 21, 38–40, 42–43, 46–47, 51–53 above, and further in view of Magomedov et al. (US 2021/0234101 A1, hereafter “Magomedov”).
Jin teaches an OLED device comprising an anode, a first functional layer, a second functional layer, a light emitting layer, a third functional layer, and a cathode. The first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101] (shown below in Fig. 4 of Jin). The second functional layer includes poly-TPD (4-butyl-N,N-diphenylaniline homopolymer) and PVK (polyvinylcarbazole) [0101]. The OLED device, as described above, also includes Jin 1 in the organic molecule layer.
PNG
media_image5.png
628
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
247
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the OLED device, as described above, does not comprise a compound represented by Applicant’s Formula (5) or Formula (6).
Magomedov teaches compounds which may be used to uniformly form a layer on a transparent conductive oxide with minimized thickness which may be used for hole transport in an optoelectronic device [abstract]. Specifically, Magomedov teaches Compound 11 (shown below) [0138]. Magomedov further teaches using the compounds of present disclosure can cover conformally on every textured oxide surface [0156].
PNG
media_image9.png
321
276
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Compound 11 taught by Magomedov, based on the teaching of Magomedov. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a uniform film which can cover conformally on the nickel oxide surface while also transporting holes, as taught by Magomedov.
The resulting OLED device including Compound 11 in the organic molecule layer reads on Applicant’s limitation since Compound 11 includes R5 which is a phosphonate group, R6 which is a carbazole, and it is identical to Applicant’s Formula (6) (shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
269
224
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
321
276
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights