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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on June 19, 2020.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on November 16, 2022.
Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 16, 2022, February 15, 2023, July 17, 2024, February 28, 2025, and September 4, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Formulae 5-1 and 5-2 in claim 9 are low resolution and it is difficult to determine the presence or absence of bonds, particularly as it relates to Y3 and Q3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Many of the compounds and formulae in the specification, including at least formulae 5-1 and 5-2 on page 12, the synthesis reactions on pages 40 – 54, and the compounds in [0165], [0169 – 0172] are low resolution and difficult to discern.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The formulae in claims 1 – 5, and 9 contain two different identifiers for the formulae drawn, a [Chem. X] identifier above the structure and a (x) identifier below. This renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear when the claims discuss a formulae number which identifier is being used. For instance, claim 5 recites a compound represented by general formula (3), which could refer to
PNG
media_image1.png
198
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the claim, but could also be interpreted as being represented by Chem. 3 in claim 2 as both structures appear to be represented by the identifier “3.”
Examiner recommends amending the claims to remove the [Chem XX] identifiers.
Claims 6 – 8 and 10 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 – 4, and 8 – 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 17/909100 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of formula (1) with a group represented by formula 2-1 in claims 1 – 4 of the ‘100 application overlap in scope with formula (1) in claims 1 – 4 of the instant application. Claims 5 – 20 of the ‘100 application discuss the use of a blue emitting layer with an anthracene host material and a blue dopant with the same formula as in claims 8 – 10 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,925,108. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of formula A-1 in the ‘108 patent overlap in scope with formula (1) in the instant application.
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.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN110317140A, using the provided machine translation). “NPB” (“NPB” Ossila.) is provided as an evidentiary reference for claim 1.
As per claims 1 – 4, Chen 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 (In Example Device 1, as described in [0134], a device is prepared with a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer a, a hole transport layer b, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode sequentially formed.)
Wherein the second hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by general formula (1)
PNG
media_image2.png
192
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(In Example 9, compound 108 is used in the hole transport layer b
PNG
media_image3.png
114
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. This compound 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 represents a divalent group which is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon, m is an integer of 1, Ar1 is a substituted aromatic heterocyclic group; Ar2 is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group; B and C represent a substituted aromatic group. This compound reads on general formula 2-2 in claim 2 and general formulae 2-3 and 2-4 in claims 3 and 4 wherein p is 0.)
Wherein an absolute value of a difference between a HOMO level of the second hole transport layer and a HOMO level of the first hole transport layer is 0.15 eV or less (In the Example device 9, NPB is used as the material of hole transport layer a. As evidenced by “NPB,” the HOMO level of NPB is -5.5 eV (Page 2). Table 1 in Chen shows that the HOMO level of compound 108 is -5.55. Therefore, the difference between the HOMO levels is 0.05 eV, which is within the range claimed.)
As per claims 5 – 7, an alternative interpretation is that the claimed first and second hole transport layers are sublayers of Chen’s hole transport b. As the materials would then be the same, the difference in HOMO levels between the layers would be 0, which is less than 0.15 eV as claimed. In this scenario, compound 108 above reads on general formula (3) in claim 5 wherein groups F is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group; E and D are represented by general formula 4-1
PNG
media_image5.png
172
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein for E, q is 0 so that L2 does not exist, r and s are 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist, X1 is CR5R6 wherein R5 and R6 each represent a linear alkyl group having 1 carbon atom; for D, q is 2 and one L2 is divalent group which is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon and the other L2 is a divalent group which is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon; r and s are 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist; X1 is NR4 wherein R4 is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group.)
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 – 3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchiwaki (US20160141509A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, Fuchiwaki 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 ([0051]: “An organic EL device utilizing the material for an organic EL device according to the inventive concept will be explained. The drawing is a schematic diagram illustrating an organic EL device 100 according to an embodiment. The organic EL device 100 may include, for example, a substrate 102, an anode 104, a hole injection layer 106, a hole transport layer 108, an emission layer 110, an electron transport layer 112, an electron injection layer 114 and a cathode 116.” The claimed first and second hole transport layers are interpreted as two sublayers of the hole transport layer taught by Fuchiwaki.)
Wherein the second hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by general formula (1)
PNG
media_image2.png
192
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fuchiwaki teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
132
290
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. A particular compound taught by Fuchiwaki is compound 24
PNG
media_image7.png
274
678
media_image7.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 3 two R1 are an unsubstituted aromatic group and one R1 is a substituted aromatic group; 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. This compound is represented by general formula 2-2 as required by claim 2, and general formula 2-3 in claim 3 wherein p represents 0. & [0052]: “For example, an embodiment utilizing the material for an organic EL device according to the inventive concept in the hole transport layer 108 will be explained.”)
Wherein an absolute value of a difference between a HOMO level of the second hole transport layer and a HOMO level of the first hole transport layer is 0.15 eV or less (Since the compounds of the first and second hole transport layer are the same, it would naturally follow that the difference between the HOMO levels is 0, which is less than 0.15 eV as claimed.)
While Fuchiwaki does not specifically teach a device with compound 24 in the hole transport layer, Fuchiwaki teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Fuchiwaki as Fuchiwaki demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 5,
Wherein the first hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by general formula (3)
PNG
media_image8.png
194
166
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(As noted above, the first and second hole transport layer are interpreted as sublayers of Fuchiwaki. Therefore, the compounds of the layers are identical. Compound 24 above reads on the claimed formula wherein E and F represent a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group; and D represents a group represented by general formula 4-1
PNG
media_image5.png
172
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein q represents an integer of 3 and two L2 are divalent groups which are unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbons and one L2 is a divalent group which is a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon; r and s represent 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist; X1 is NR4 wherein R4 is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group.)
As per claim 10, Fuchiwaki teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer contains an anthracene derivative having an anthracene backbone ([0055]: “The emission layer may be disposed on the hole transport layer 108 and may be formed utilizing a host material represented by one of the following Formula HO1 to HO4 doped with a luminescent material
PNG
media_image9.png
270
246
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.”)
Claims 1 – 5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham (KR20190003329A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 4, 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_image2.png
192
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Ham teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image10.png
188
252
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A particular compound taught by Ham is compound 4
PNG
media_image11.png
108
96
media_image11.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 claim 3 wherein p represents 0. & [0019]: “The compound of the present invention can increase hole injection and transport characteristics when used as a hole transport layer (HTL)”)
Wherein an absolute value of a difference between a HOMO level of the second hole transport layer and a HOMO level of the first hole transport layer is 0.15 eV or less (Since the compounds of the first and second hole transport layer are the same, it would naturally follow that the difference between the HOMO levels is 0, which is less than 0.15 eV as claimed.)
While Ham does not specifically teach a device with compound 24 in the hole transport layer, Ham teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Ham as Ham demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 5, Ham teaches:
Wherein the first hole transport layer contains a triarylamine compound represented by general formula (3)
PNG
media_image8.png
194
166
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(As noted above, the first and second hole transport layer are interpreted as sublayers of Ham. Therefore, the compounds of the layers are identical. Compound 4 above reads on the claimed formula wherein E and F represent a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group and an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group, respectively; and D represents a group represented by general formula 4-1
PNG
media_image5.png
172
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein q represents an integer of 0 so that L2 does not exist; r and s represent 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist; X1 represents O.)
As per claim 8, Ham teaches:
Wherein the light-emitting layer contains a blue light-emitting dopant (In the examples, Ham uses the blue dopant
PNG
media_image12.png
80
152
media_image12.png
Greyscale
in the emission layer as claimed.)
As per claim 10, 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_image13.png
76
120
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham (KR20190003329A) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 8 and 10 above, and further in view of Suh (WO2019164331A1, using US20210184121A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claim 9, Ham teaches blue dopant materials in the emission layer of the device, such as
PNG
media_image12.png
80
152
media_image12.png
Greyscale
used with anthracene based host materials, such as
PNG
media_image13.png
76
120
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. Ham does not teach:
Wherein the blue light-emitting dopant is a compound represented by general formula (5-1) or (5-2)
PNG
media_image14.png
158
194
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
190
162
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Suh teaches OLED devices with similar blue light emission anthracene based host materials,
PNG
media_image16.png
270
322
media_image16.png
Greyscale
, and similar triarylamine hole transport layer materials
PNG
media_image17.png
258
328
media_image17.png
Greyscale
([0178]). Suh teaches that the devices contain dopants such as
PNG
media_image18.png
174
318
media_image18.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula 5-1 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.
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