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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on each of 10/11/2022 and 07/30/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least a chemical structure formula of Formula 1 and Formula 2 should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claims 13 and 20 appear to lack a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1 (hereinafter "Kang").
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-19, Kang discloses an organic electric element comprising an organic material layer between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the organic material layer comprises a compound represented by a Formula 1 (¶ [0129]), wherein the organic material layer includes a light-emitting layer and a hole transport layer between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer, and an emission auxiliary layer between the hole transport layer and the first electrode, wherein the compound is included in at least one layer of the hole transport layer and the emission auxiliary layer (¶ [0131]), and wherein the organic material layer comprises a hole injection layer between the first electrode and the hole transport layer (¶ [0060]). Kang discloses examples of the compound represented by a Formula 1 including Compound P-32
PNG
media_image1.png
279
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 19). Kang discloses that the driving voltage of the organic electric element can be lowered, and the luminous efficiency and lifetime of the element can be improved using the compound (¶ [0012]).
Compound P-32 is a compound of the claimed Formula 1, 3, and 3-3 wherein:
L1 is an unsubstituted arylene (a phenylene group) and L2 is a direct linkage;
Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 10 ring-forming carbon atoms (a naphthyl group) and Ar2 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 10 ring-forming carbon atoms (a naphthyl group);
Ar3 is represented by Formula 2 and 2-3;
X is O;
R1 is in each case a hydrogen atom;
R2 is in each case hydrogen and R3 is an substituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a substituted phenyl group); and
p is 5, q is 5, and r is 1.
Therefore, the device comprising the compound of Kang meets claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-19.
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 8, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1 (hereinafter "Kang") as applied to claims 1 and 14 above.
Regarding claims 8, 13, and 20, Kang discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claims 1 and 14.
Kang does not exemplify a compound that meets the claimed Formula 5 or corresponds to one of the specific compounds of claims 8 and 20. For example, the compound P-32 differs from the claimed compound of Formula 4 and the specific compound
PNG
media_image2.png
167
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in that (1) the position corresponding to R6 in the general formula of Kang is a terphenyl instead of a phenyl group, (2) the position corresponding to L in the general formula of Kang is a meta-phenylene instead of a para-phenylene, and (3) the position corresponding to Ar1 in the general formula of Kang is naphthyl group instead of a biphenyl group.
However, Kang teaches that R6 may be a terphenyl group and a phenyl group, among others (¶ [0097]), that L may be a meta or para phenylene (¶ [0115]), and that Ar1 may be a naphthyl group or a biphenyl group, among others (¶ [0097]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kang, 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 R6 with an unsubstituted phenyl group, the position corresponding to L with a para-phenylene, and the position corresponding to Ar1 with a biphenyl group, because Kang teaches the variables 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 Kang and possess the benefits of lowered driving voltage and improved luminous efficiency and lifetime as described above taught by Kang. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound corresponds to the claimed compound C2.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1 (hereinafter "Kang") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Osaka et al. US-20120061714-A1 (hereinafter "Osaka").
Regarding claim 12, Kang discloses the device comprising the compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kang does not specifically disclose wherein the device comprises a compound of the claimed Formula E-1 in the light-emitting layer.
Osaka teaches host compounds including those that meet the claimed Formula E-1 for use in the light-emitting layer of an organic light emitting device (¶ [0192]). Osaka teaches that with a structure in which a guest material is dispersed in a host material, crystallization of the light-emitting layer can be suppressed and concentration quenching due to high concentration of the guest material can also be suppressed (¶ [0194]).
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 include one of the host compounds taught by Osaka in the light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Osaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to suppress crystallization and concentration quenching, as taught by Osaka.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20210119135-A1, cited on the IDS of 10/11/2022, teaches amine compounds including compounds A20
PNG
media_image3.png
213
297
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 13); US-20210234104-A1 (KR-20210092367-A), cited on the IDS of 10/11/2022, teaches amine compounds including compound A74
PNG
media_image4.png
321
214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 14); US-20210126197-A1 (KR-20210049244-A) , cited on the IDS of 10/11/2022, teaches amine compounds including compounds C11
PNG
media_image5.png
247
264
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 81).
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