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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 7 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 03/13/2026. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uno (US 2022/0416174 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/13/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/13/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 72-74 of the reply dated 03/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited reference Ueno does not disclose any compounds within the scope of the amened claim 1 in view of the explicitly excluded compounds.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, while Ueno’s compounds are specifically excluded from the amended claim 1, compounds of Ueno’s Formula 1 are not limited to the exemplified compounds. Positional isomers of Ueno’s exemplified compounds are within the scope of Ueno’s Formula 1 and are also within the scope of the amended claim 1. Accordingly, the cited reference Ueno teaches the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 includes blurry compounds.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
Claim 1 is amended to exclude specific compounds from the compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1. However, any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(i). As not all of the explicitly excluded compounds of claim 1 were positively recited in the instant specification at the time of filing, there is not sufficient support to exclude all of the excluded compounds in claim 1.
For example, the first excluded compound on pg. 3, the second excluded compound on pg. 8, and the second excluded compound on pg. 9 (shown below) were not presented in the original disclosure. Accordingly, as these compounds were not positively recited at the time of filing, there is insufficient support to exclude them. It should be noted that the compounds below are only examples of unsupported compounds and do not represent an exhaustive list. Other compounds presently excluded from the claims similarly do not have sufficient support.
PNG
media_image1.png
293
263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
327
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
294
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For this reason, claim 1 is considered to have new matter.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US 2022/0416174 A1).
Regarding claims 1-8, Uno teaches an organic electroluminescence device having high emission efficiency by including a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the hole transport region includes a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound B84 (¶ [0135]); structure on pg. 53).
Compound B84 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1.
B84:
PNG
media_image4.png
239
291
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound B84 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 as its structure is excluded. However, Ueno teaches in Formula 1, any one among A1 to A10 may be represented by Formula 2-1 and Ar1-1 and Ar2-1 may be represented by Formula 3-2 (¶ [0006]-[0010]). That is, the attachment of the phenanthrene (i.e., Formula 3-2) to the phenyl group is not limited to the para-position.
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
179
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2-1:
PNG
media_image6.png
108
111
media_image6.png
Greyscale
3-2:
PNG
media_image7.png
111
203
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Ueno, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of compound B84 wherein the phenanthrene is attached to the phenyl group in the meta-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as in the hole transport region of the organic electroluminescence device of Ueno and possess the properties taught by Ueno. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified compound B84 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified B84:
PNG
media_image8.png
149
177
media_image8.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image9.png
217
242
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The modified compound B84 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
L is an unsubstituted C6 arylene (phenylene) (claim 2);
L1 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene (phenylene) (claim 4);
Ar1 is represented by
PNG
media_image10.png
89
279
media_image10.png
Greyscale
;
X is O;
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) (claim 6);
each R is hydrogen;
n1 is 9; and
n2 is 9.
Additionally, L reads on the group
PNG
media_image11.png
84
69
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(claim 3); L1 reads on the group
PNG
media_image12.png
90
49
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(claim 5); and the modified compound B84 reads on the 7th claimed compound on page 26 of claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US 2022/0416174 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Uno teaches the organic electroluminescence device comprising the modified compound B84, as described above with respect to claim 8.
While Uno teaches the polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 may be included in the emission layer (¶ [0051]), Uno fails to specifically teach a device as described above including the modified compound B84 in the emission layer. However, Uno does teach the polycyclic compound represented by Formula 1 has improved hole transport capacity, driving voltage, lifespan, and efficiency (¶ [0343]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes a host that is a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host and a dopant that includes both a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant (abstract). Such a device results in a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance (¶ [0023]). Kim teaches the hole transporting hist may be an aromatic amine compound (¶ [0051]).
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 use a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transport host and a combination of a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant in the emission layer of Uno’s device to provide a device with a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance, as taught by Kim.
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the modified compound B84 of Ueno as the hole transport host, based on the teaching of Uno. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a hole transport host that provides improved hole transport capacity, driving voltage, lifespan, and efficiency, as taught by Uno.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights