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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on March 12, 2026.
Claims 1 – 8 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Huh fails to disclose the specific bonding pattern of compounds of Chemical Formula 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Huh may fail to teach any specific compounds wherein the naphthyl linker group is bonded a claimed in Chemical Formula 1, the linking group of Huh shows variable bonding options and therefore encompasses the particular bonding pattern claimed. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that the experimental results of the Examples and Comparative Examples in the instant specification demonstrate that an OLED comprising a compound of Chemical Formula 1 exhibits superior driving voltage, efficiency and lifetime compared to Comparative Example 6, which contains an alternative bonding pattern of the naphthyl linker that is encompasses by the compounds of Huh. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data shown in the table is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reason that the claims are directed to a compound, not the use of the compound in a device, the properties of the corresponding device being claimed as unexpectedly superior. Examiner notes that the data is specific to the use of the compound as a hole blocking layer in a blue light emitting device and no evidence has been presented that the use of the compound in a different layer or with a different color light emission would similarly show unexpectedly superior results.
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 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh (KR20180022546A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 4, Huh teaches:
A compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
232
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Huh teaches compounds of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
164
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0010]) wherein Ar3 is a substituent represented by Chemical Formula 2 or 3
PNG
media_image3.png
216
278
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
270
310
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0018]). A specific compound taught by Huh is
PNG
media_image5.png
142
210
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on Page 10. While the bonding of the specific compound differs from the claimed Formula, Huh defines the linking group as being selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image6.png
140
140
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0070]), which includes a variable bonding position of the groups on the same ring of the naphthyl group. 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 shift the bonding of the fluoranthene group from the shown para position to an ortho or meta position on the naphthyl ring with respect to the phenyl ring and arrive at a compound of the claimed formula. When modified in this way, the compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 to X3 are all N; L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group, L2 is a single bond; Ar1 and Ar2 are both unsubstituted aryl groups; R1 to R6 and Q1 to Q3 are all hydrogen; l1 is an integer of 1; l2 is an integer of 1; q1 is an integer of 3; q2 is an integer of 3; q3 is an integer of 3 and q1+q2 equals 6. The compound reads on Chemical Formula 1-1
PNG
media_image7.png
226
336
media_image7.png
Greyscale
or Chemical Formula 1-3
PNG
media_image8.png
272
352
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 2, depending on the fluoranthene bonding position chosen, and Chemical Formula 1-9 in claim 3
PNG
media_image9.png
228
362
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Huh includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Huh 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 lower driving voltage, higher luminous efficiency and improved lifespan ([0249]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 5, the modified compound above does not read on any of the particularly claimed compounds. However, the only difference between the modified compound above and claimed compound
PNG
media_image10.png
176
124
media_image10.png
Greyscale
is the fluorenyl group in the modified compound above is a phenyl group in the claimed compound. In the definition for Ar1 and Ar2, Huh teaches that the groups are selected from a C6-C60 aromatic groups ([0017]). Furthermore, Huh teaches compounds where the triazine group contains two phenyl groups, such as compound
PNG
media_image11.png
118
174
media_image11.png
Greyscale
on Page 8. 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 replace the fluorenyl group in the modified compound above with a phenyl group and arrive at the claimed compound.
Huh includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Huh 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 lower driving voltage, higher luminous efficiency and improved lifespan ([0249]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 6, Huh teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, one or more organic material layers provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein one or more layers of the organic material layers include the compound ([0028]: “In addition, the present invention provides an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode provided opposite the first electrode; and one or more organic layers provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein at least one of the organic layers comprises a compound represented by chemical formula 1.”)
As per claim 7, Huh teaches:
Wherein the one or more organic material layers include an electron injection layer, an electron transfer layer, or an electron injection and transfer layer ([0030]: “Figure 2 illustrates an example of an organic light-emitting device composed of a substrate (1), an anode (2), a hole injection layer (5), a hole transport layer (6), a light-emitting layer (7), an electron transport layer (8), and a cathode (4).”)
The electron injection layer, the electron transfer layer, or the electron injection and transfer layer includes the compound ([0029]: “The compound represented by the above-described chemical formula 1 can be used as a …. Electron transport or electron injection material.”)
As per claim 8, Huh teaches that the organic material layer includes an electron transport layer and that the electron transport layer can contain the compound of formula 1 ([0029 – 0030]). As the electron transport layer does not transport holes (i.e. it blocks them), a portion of the electron transport layer can be interpreted as a hole blocking layer and Huh meets the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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