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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The objections to claims 1 and 13 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 26-28 of the reply dated 03/18/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 26-28 of the reply that the data in the specification demonstrate that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results compared with the prior art. Specifically, the applicant argues that in Table 1 of the specification, the light-emitting devices of Examples 1 to 8, which employ example compounds containing two naphthyl groups, exhibit superior luminous efficiency and lifetime compared with the light-emitting device of Comparative Example 2, which employs comparative compound C2 containing only one naphthyl group.
Examiner's response -- Applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Comparison must be between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
It does not appear that comparison has been made between two compounds that differ by only the substitution of an additional naphthyl group such that the compound comprises two naphthyl groups oriented as shown in the claimed formula. Several of the compounds in listed in Table 1 further show more than one fused group of Formula 2 while in the rejection of record in the cited compound and in the comparative compound C2 of Table 1, only one group of Formula 2 is present. In the case of the compounds wherein one fused group of Formula 2, the substituents further differ. As a result, it is unclear to what degree the change in device performance is due to the addition of a second naphthyl group and to what degree the change is due to further substitutions and substituents.
For at least these reasons the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 28 that Li cannot remedy the alleged deficiencies of Lin.
Examiner's response – The Li reference is relied upon to teach the addition of a deuterium substituent(s) and does not relate the addition of naphthyl groups and therefore, for the reasons discussed above this is not found persuasive.
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 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. CN-111138393-A (hereinafter "Lin-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Lin-MT").
Lin et al. CN-111138393-A is cited on the IDS of 09/15/2022.
Regarding claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19, Lin teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an organic layer between an anode and a cathode wherein the organic layer comprises an aromatic amine compound of a formula (I) (Lin-MT, page 2 of 18, lines 6-7 and 14-15; page 5 of 18, lines 1-2) having structure
PNG
media_image1.png
175
205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lin-CN, page 8). Lin teaches wherein the device comprises an electron transport region between the cathode and the light emitting layer (Lin-MT, page 5 of 18, lines 3-6) and a hole transport region between the anode and the light emitting layer comprising a hole injection layer and a hole transporting layer (Lin-MT, page 5 of 18, lines 3-9), wherein the hole transport layer may comprise a first hole transport layer and a second hole transporting layer, and wherein either may comprise the arylamine compound (Lin-MT, page 5 of 18, lines 16-21). Lin teaches examples of the arylamine compound of formula (I) including compounds 7 and 8
PNG
media_image2.png
164
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Lin-CN, page 12). Line teaches that the device may comprise a covering layer on the cathode which may comprise the arylamine compound (Lin-MT, page 5 of 18 lines 34-36) and teaches arylamine compounds having a refractive index of more than 1.6 (Lin-MT, page 15 of 18, lines 3-7 and Lin-CN, Table 1). Lin teaches that the main body of the light emitting layer may be preferably EPH (page 5 of 18, line 22), which has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
190
201
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Lin-CN, page 32) and is a compound of the claimed Formula E-1. Lin teaches the device possessing low driving voltage (Lin-CN, page 2 of 18, lines 8-9), and good luminous efficiency (Lin-CN, page 2 of 18, lines 10-11).
Lin does not exemplify a compound that meets the claimed Formula I. For example, the compounds 7 and 8 differ from the claimed compound in that the position corresponding to Ar1/Ar2 in the general formula of Lin is a phenyl instead of a naphthyl group.
However, Lin teaches the position corresponding to Ar1/Ar2 may be preferably selected as a naphthyl group (Lin-MT, page 3 of 18, lines 21-22 and Lin-CN, page 9, [0033]-[0034]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lin, 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 one of Ar1/Ar2 with a naphthyl group, because Lin teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known 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 in the hole transport region of the device of Lin and possess the benefits as described above taught by Lin. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound meets the claimed Formula I and Formula 1-1 wherein:
Ar1 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a substituted phenyl group);
R1 and R2 are each hydrogen and R3 and R4 are each a single bond forming a ring by bonding with a group represented by Formula 2 and 2-1;
X is O;
R5 to R9 are each hydrogen and R10 to R12 are not required to be present;
a and b are 2;
c and d are 7; and
e is 4.
Therefore, the device comprising the modified compounds meets claims 1-8, 11, 13-17, and 19.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Lin teaches the device comprising the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 13.
Lin does not exemplify one of the compounds list in claims 12 and 20. For example, the modified compound 8 differs from the claimed compound 49
PNG
media_image4.png
141
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in that the position corresponding to L1/L2 in the in the general formula of Lin is a phenyl instead of single bond (that is, n1/n2 as 0).
However, Lin teaches n1 and n2 may be 0 or 1 which would make L1/L2 a single bond (Lin-MT, page 2 of 18, lines 19-20).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lin, 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 the position corresponding to L1/L2 in the in the general formula of Lin with a single bond (such that n1/n2 is 0), because Lin teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known 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 in the hole transport region of the device of Lin and possess the benefits as described above taught by Lin. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. CN-111138393-A (hereinafter "Lin-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Lin-MT") as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, and further in view of Li et al. US-20020076576-A1 (hereinafter "Li").
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Lin teaches the device comprising the modified compound as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 13.
Li teaches that a deuterated organic system has better thermal stability, and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices (¶ [0009]) and deuterated organic semiconductor materials exhibit improved performance including brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime compared to non-deuterated organic semiconductor materials (Abstract, ¶ [0023], and [0077]).
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 modify the compound Lin to include at least one deuterium, based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain brighter luminescence, better thermal stability, and longer lifetime, as taught by Li.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR-20210061254-A cited on the IDS of 08/28/2025 teaches amine compounds comprising naphthalene and dibenzoheterole moieties including compounds P-2 and P-11 (page 36).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights