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 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7, 13-14, 17, and 20 are amended and claims 5-6, 8, and 15-16 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 are pending.
The objection to the abstract as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The objections to claims 13 and 20 as set forth in the previous Office action are each withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1, the rejection of claims 8, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1, and the rejection of claims 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Osaka et al. US-20120061714-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of further teachings of Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 51-56 of the reply dated 04/07/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by and under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1 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 51-56 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment. Specifically, the applicant argues that the cited compound P-32 does not read on the formula as amended because as amended, when Ar3 corresponds to a group of Formula 2-3, neither of L1 or L2 may be a direct bond and r must be 0.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein Ar3 corresponds to a group of Formula 2-3, neither of L1 or L2 may be a direct bond and r must be 0 and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below. More specifically, the positional isomer of compound P-32 meets the claimed formula wherein Ar3 is represented by Formula 2-4 and the proviso is not activated. 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.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 56 that Osaka does not cure the alleged deficiency of Kang and the dependent claims comprise all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 14 and therefore the dependently claims should be allowable for the reasons discussed above.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to the rejection over Osaka and therefore, for the reasons outlined 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 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1 (hereinafter "Kang").
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 17-19, Kang teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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]).
Kang does not exemplify a compound that meets the claimed Formula 1. For example, the Compound P-32 is a positional isomer of the claimed compound wherein the R6 phenyl group is substituted at the 1-position instead of the 2-position of the dibenzofuranyl group. However, the general formula of Kang encompasses the position isomers wherein R6 is at either the 1- or 2-positions on the dibenzo group, see Formula 1 of Kang:
PNG
media_image2.png
261
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0085]).
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 make the positional isomer of the compound P-32 wherein the R6 phenyl group is substituted at the 2-position instead of the 1-position on the dibenzofuran group. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Kang's Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the hole transport region of the device of Kang and possess the properties of lowered driving voltage and improved luminous efficiency and lifetime taught by Kang. 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 positional isomer of Compound P-32 wherein the R6 phenyl group is at the 2-position of the dibenzofuran group is a compound of the claimed Formula 1 and 3-4 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 2-4;
X is O;
R1 is in each case a hydrogen atom;
R2 is in each case hydrogen and R3 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (a substituted phenyl group); and
p is 5, q is 5, and r is 1.
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 teaches the device comprising the modified compound as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kang does not specifically disclose wherein the device further 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, exemplified by Kang et al. US-20250057038-A1, teaches an organic electric element comprising a compound represented by a Formula 1 (¶ [0129]), wherein the compound is included in at least one layer of the hole transport layer and the emission auxiliary layer (¶ [0131]) and Kang teaches 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). However, Kang does not teach a compound as recited in claims 13 and 20. For example the compound P-32 differs from the claimed compounds at least in that Kang requires at least one of group corresponding to the claimed R2 and R3 be present and other than hydrogen while in the claimed compounds of claim 13 and 20, R2 and R3 are each hydrogen. Further, the prior art does not provide a reason to modify the compound P-32 of Kang such that the groups at positions corresponding to claimed R2 and R3 are each hydrogen to arrive at one of the specific compounds recited in claims 13 and 20 with a reasonable expectation of success.
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).
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 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