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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, and 19-20 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 10 and 20 have overcome the rejections of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejections of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(2) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, and 19-20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watabe et al. (US 20210005814 A1, hereafter Watabe),
the rejections of claims 6, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. (US 20210005814 A1),
the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. (US 20210005814 A1) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo),
the rejections of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 2019/0016666 A1, hereafter Jeong),
the rejections of claims 15-16 and 18-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of US Patent no. 11,950,499 B2 (hereafter Patent ‘499),
the rejection of claim 12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of US Patent no. 11,950,499 B2, in view of Watabe et al. (US 20210005814 A1) and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 47-50 of the reply filed 02/17/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watabe, the rejections of claims 6, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe, the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe/Seo set forth in the Office Action of 11/17/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections refer to Compound 164 of Watanabe, compound mmtBuBichPAF of Watanabe, and Modified compound of Watanabe (2) (see section 27, 39 of the last Office Action). The compounds do not read on Applicant’s Formula 1 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the compound 88 of WO2021/082714 A1 does not read on the Formula 1 of the amended claim because the carbon number range for Rx to “4 to 20” when X is S (page 50).
The instant Office Action refers to Ma et al. (US 2022/0306567 A1) which is one of patent family of WO 2021/082714 A1.
Ma discloses a compound (Formula I in [0009]) used for a light emitting device ([0002], Fig. 1) and exemplifies Compound 88 ([0058]).
PNG
media_image1.png
361
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 88 of Ma, the methyl groups corresponding to the substituents of Ar1 (or Ar2) are not t-butyl group; however, Ma does teach that Ar1 or Ar2 can be biphenyl,
PNG
media_image2.png
129
215
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which can be substituted by methyl or t-butyl ([0055]-[0056]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 88 of Ma by substituting the methyl groups substituted to the biphenyl at the position corresponding to Ar1 (or Ar2) of Formula I of Ma, as taught by Ma.
PNG
media_image3.png
313
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Ma which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1.
New grounds of rejection is applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 51 of the reply filed 02/17/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong set forth in the Office Action of 11/17/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections refer to Compound p48-3 of Jeong (see section 55 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on Applicant’s Formula 1 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 51 of the reply filed 02/17/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 15-16 and 18-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Patent ‘499, the rejection of claim 12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Patent ‘499/Watabe/Seo set forth in the Office Action of 11/17/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections refer to Compound 8 of Patent ‘499 (see section 68 of the last Office Action). The Compound 8 of Patent ‘499 does not read on Applicant’s Formula 1 of the amended claims. For that reason, the rejections are withdrawn.
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.
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 1-9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2022/0306567 A1, hereafter Ma).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 15-16 and 18-19, Ma discloses a compound (Formula I in [0009]) used for a light emitting device ([0002], Fig. 1) and exemplifies Compound 88 ([0058]).
PNG
media_image1.png
361
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 88 of Ma, the methyl groups corresponding to the substituents of Ar1 (or Ar2) are not t-butyl group; however, Ma does teach that Ar1 or Ar2 can be biphenyl,
PNG
media_image2.png
129
215
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which can be substituted by methyl or t-butyl ([0055]-[0056]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 88 of Ma by substituting the methyl groups substituted to the biphenyl at the position corresponding to Ar1 (or Ar2) of Formula I of Ma, as taught by Ma.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified substituent groups from methyl to t-butyl in the biphenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar1 (or Ar2) of Formula I of Ma would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image3.png
313
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Ma which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 15-16 and 18-19.
Ma does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Modified compound of Ma; however, Ma does teach that the compound can be used as the hole transporting material in a light emitting device ([0042]).
Ma teaches the structure of the light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer containing the compound of Ma, a second hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode ([0119]-[0124]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Ma by incorporating it into the hole transport layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Ma.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the hole transport layer materials of Ma in the device of Ma would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Ma comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (Modified compound of Ma), a second hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 11.
Regarding claim 4, the Modified compound of Ma reads on all the features of claim 15 as outlined above.
The amine group is not substituted to the position 2 of the dibenzothiophene group (see the annotated numbers in the figure above), which does not read on the limitation of Formula 1-1; however, Ma does teach that Ar1 and Ar2 in Formula I can be substituted to any substitution position of the Ar1 and Ar2 ([0025]). Ma further teaches examples wherein the amine group is substituted to the position 2 of the dibenzo 5-membered ring group (see examples in [058] including at least compounds 84 and 123).
Furthermore, the Modified compound of Ma is a position isomer with similar compound in which the amino group is substituted to the position 2 of the dibenzothiophene ring.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Modified compound of Ma shown above such that the amino group is substituted to the position 2 of the dibenzothiophene ring. A compound in which the amino group is substituted to the position 2 of the dibenzothiophene ring would represent a position isomer of the Modified compound of Ma. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified compound of Ma (2) which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Ma except the amino group is substituted to the position 2 of the dibenzothiophene ring.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the Modified compound of Ma reads on all the features of claim 15 as outlined above.
The t-butyl groups substituted to the terminal phenyl group (i.e. the t-butyl groups at the positions corresponding to the substituents of the Ar1 (or Ar2) of Formula I) is not ortho substituted (i.e. the positions pointed by arrows in the figure above) which does not read on the limitation of Formula 3; however, Ma teaches that the alkyl substituents of the moieties Ar1 (or Ar2) of Formula I can be ortho-substituted (see examples in [0057] including the following structures).
PNG
media_image4.png
197
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
189
225
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the Modified compound of Ma is a position isomer with similar compound in which the t-butyl groups are substituted to the ortho positions.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Modified compound of Ma shown above such that the t-butyl group is substituted to the ortho position of the terminal phenyl ring. A compound in which the t-butyl groups are ortho-substituted would represent a position isomer of the Modified compound of Ma. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified compound of Ma (3) which has identical structure as the Modified compound of Ma except the t-butyl groups at the terminal phenyl group is each substituted to the ortho position of the terminal phenyl group.
Regarding claims 13-14, the Modified light emitting device of Ma reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (Modified compound of Ma), a second hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The second hole transport layer does not comprise a compound represented by Formula 5 of the instant claims; however, Ma does teach both first and the second hole transport layers can comprise the compound of Ma ([0066]). Ma exemplifies Compound 72 as the compound of Ma ([0058]).
PNG
media_image6.png
336
437
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 72 of Ma has identical structure as Applicant’s Formulas 5 and 6-1.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Ma by incorporating Compound 72 of Ma in the second hole transport layer material, as taught by Ma.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the second hole transport layer materials of Ma in the device of Ma would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Ma (2) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (Modified compound of Ma), a second hole transport layer (Compound 72 of Ma), an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2022/0306567 A1) as applied to claims 1-9, 11, and 13-19 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereafter Liao).
Regarding claim 12, the Modified light emitting device of Ma reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (Modified compound of Ma), a second hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Modified light emitting device of Ma is not a stacked device emitting white light.
Liao discloses a stacked OLED device emitting white light (Fig. 7, [0017]-[0022]).
Liao teaches that the stacked device provides lowered optical loss, improved luminance efficiency, and brightness ([0026]-[0028]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Ma by stacking three EL units (R, G, B emitting units) between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each EL unit comprises the same organic layer structure of the Modified light emitting device of Ma (i.e. HIL, HTL, EML, ETL) except the light emitting materials, as taught by Ma and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with lowered optical loss, improved luminance efficiency, and brightness, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Liao comprising a first electrode, a first EL unit, a charge generation layer (CGL), a second EL unit, a CGL, a third EL unit, and a second electrode, wherein each EL unit has structure of HIL, HTL (Modified compound of Ma), HTL, EML, and ETL.
The device is equated with a first electrode, HIL, a first hole transport layer (Modified compound of Ma), HTL, blue EML, ETL, CGL, HIL, a second hole transport layer (Modified compound of Ma), HTL, green EML, ETL, CGL, HIL, a third hole transport layer (Modified compound of Ma), an emission layer (i.e. red EML), an electron transport region (i.e. ETL), and a second electrode.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2022/0306567 A1) in view of Ham et al. (KR 2019/0003329 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainer body of the patent, hereafter Ham).
Regarding claims 1-11 and 15-20, Ma discloses a compound (Formula I in [0009]) used for a light emitting device ([0002], Fig. 1) and exemplifies Compound 2 ([0058]).
PNG
media_image7.png
383
555
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In the Compound 2 of Ma has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 18,
PNG
media_image8.png
171
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. The difference between two compounds is that 1) amino group is substituted to the position 2 of the fluorene group at the position corresponding to Ar1 of Formula I, and 2) the terminal benzene ring of the biphenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar2 is substituted by two phenyl groups at the ortho positions (i.e. the positions pointed by arrows in the figure above).
However, Ma does teach that the ring at Ar1 can be substituted to the amino group at any substitutable position of the Ar1 ([0025]). Ma exemplifies a compound wherein the fluorene group at Ar1 bonds to the central amino group at the position 2 (see examples in [0058] including at least Compound 65). Ma also teaches that Ar1 or Ar2 can be an aryl group which can be further substituted by aryl ([0028]). Ma exemplifies phenyl as the aryl substituent ([0034]). Ma teaches ortho substitution for the substituent aryl group (see Compound 78 in [0058])
Ham discloses an arylamine compound (Formula 1 in [0008]) used for light emitting devices ([0005]), wherein the terminal aryl group is a branched aryl. Ham exemplifies Compound 17 ([0089]) wherein the terminal phenyl group is substituted by two phenyl groups at the ortho positions.
PNG
media_image9.png
176
434
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Ham teaches an arylamine compound substituted by fluorene and the terminal branched aryl provides deep HOMO and high LUMO for electron blocking, increased pi conjugation, fast hole mobility, and long lifetime ([0018]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2 of Ma by substituting the fluorene group at the position 2 and substituting the biphenyl group at the position corresponding to Ar2 with two phenyl groups at the ortho position of the terminal benzene ring, as taught by Ma and Han.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide deep HOMO and high LUMO for electron blocking, increased pi conjugation, fast hole mobility, and long lifetime based on the teaching of Ham.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution (i.e. 1) substitution of the bonding position of the amino group with respect to the fluorene group, and 2) substitution of the biphenyl group at Ar2 with two phenyl groups at the ortho position of the terminal phenyl) would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image10.png
341
580
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Ma as modified by Ham having identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 18, meeting all the limitations of claims 15-20.
Ma in view of Ham does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound of Ma as modified by Ham; however, Ma does teach that the compound can be used as the hole transporting material in a light emitting device ([0042]).
Ma teaches the structure of the light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer containing the compound of Ma, a second hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode ([0119]-[0124]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Ma as modified by Ham by incorporating it into the first hole transport layer of a light emitting device, as taught by Ma.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the hole transport layer materials of Ma in the device of Ma would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Ham comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (Compound of Ma as modified by Ham), a second hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-11.
Regarding claims 13-14, the Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Ham reads on all the features of claim 11 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (Compound of Ma as modified by Ham), a second hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The second hole transport layer does not comprise a compound represented by Formula 5 of the instant claims; however, Ma does teach both first and the second hole transport layers can comprise the compound of Ma ([0066]). Ma exemplifies Compound 72 as the compound of Ma ([0058]).
PNG
media_image6.png
336
437
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Compound 72 of Ma has identical structure as Applicant’s Formulas 5 and 6-1.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Ham by incorporating Compound 72 of Ma in the second hole transport layer material, as taught by Ma.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the second hole transport layer materials of Ma in the device of Ma would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Ham (2) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (Compound of Ma as modified by Ham), a second hole transport layer (Compound 72 of Ma), an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2022/0306567 A1) in view of Ham et al. (KR 2019/0003329 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainer body of the patent) as applied to claims 1-11 and 13-20 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Ham reads on all the features of claims 1-11 and 13-20 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (Compound of Ma as modified by Ham), a second hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Modified light emitting device of Ma is not a stacked device emitting white light.
Liao discloses a stacked OLED device emitting white light (Fig. 7, [0017]-[0022]).
Liao teaches that the stacked device provides lowered optical loss, improved luminance efficiency, and brightness ([0026]-[0028]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Ham by stacking three EL units (R, G, B emitting units) between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each EL unit comprises the same organic layer structure of the Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Ham (i.e. HIL, HTL, EML, ETL) except the light emitting materials, as taught by Ma, Ham, and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with lowered optical loss, improved luminance efficiency, and brightness, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Ma as modified by Ham and Liao comprising a first electrode, a first EL unit, a charge generation layer (CGL), a second EL unit, a CGL, a third EL unit, and a second electrode, wherein each EL unit has structure of HIL, HTL (Modified compound of Ma), HTL, EML, and ETL.
The device is equated with a first electrode, HIL, a first hole transport layer (Compound of Ma as modified by Ham), HTL, blue EML, ETL, CGL, HIL, a second hole transport layer (Compound of Ma as modified by Ham), HTL, green EML, ETL, CGL, HIL, a third hole transport layer (Compound of Ma as modified by Ham, an emission layer (i.e. red EML), an electron transport region (i.e. ETL), and a second electrode.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights