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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The amendment of claim 1 has overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 11,611,043 B1, hereafter Yang),
the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 11,611,043 B1),
the rejections of claims 8 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 11,611,043 B1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20160308162 A1, hereafter Yoo), and
the rejections of claims 11-12 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 11,611,043 B1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2016/0308162 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, and 13-17 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereafter Liao).
the rejections of claims 13-14 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 11,611,043 B1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20160308162 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, and 13-17 above, further in view of Ogita et al. (US 2010/0156957 A1, hereafter Ogita) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 14-16 of the reply filed 02/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang, the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, the rejections of claims 8 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Yoo, the rejections of claims 11-12 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Yoo/Liao, and the rejections of claims 13-14 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Yoo/Ogita set forth in the Office Action of 11/20/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in view of amendment.
The rejections refer to the Compound B-9 and the Modified compounds of Yang (1) and (2) (section 14, 21, and 30 of the last Office Action). Those compound do not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 20210130313 A1, hereafter Ma).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9-11, Ma discloses a compound (Formula I) used for an organic electric device ([0006]-[0012]) and exemplifies Compound 145 ([0095]).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ma does not disclose a specific organic electric device comprising the Compound 145 of Ma; however, Ma does teach that the compound of Ma can be used for the electron blocking layer ([0097]).
Ma teaches the structure of an organic electric device (Example 2 in [0161]-[0169]) comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer comprising the compound of Ma, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
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 145 of Ma by incorporating it into the electron blocking layer of an organic electric device 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 electron blocking 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 organic electric device of Ma comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer (Compound 145 of Ma), a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
In the Compound 145 of Ma, the amino group corresponding to the structure N(Ar1)(Ar2) of Formula I is substituted to the para position of the phenylene L (see the annotated letter “p” in the figure above); however, Ma does teach that L can be a substituted or unsubstituted arylene having 6-20 carbon atoms ([0009]) indicating that there is no restriction in substitution position of the amino group within the linker L. That is, Ma teaches that the amino group can be substituted to any one of ortho, meta, and para positions of the phenylene linker.
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 145 of Ma by substituting the amino group to the ortho position of the phenylene linker, 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 substitution positions of the amino group corresponding to the N(Ar1)(Ar2) of Formula I from para to ortho would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are only three possible substitution positions of the amino group of N(Ar1)(Ar2) in the phenylene linker L of Formula I. The selection of ortho position would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Furthermore, the Compound 145 of Ma is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the amino group is substituted to the ortho position of the phenylene linker L.
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 Compound 145 of Ma shown above such that the amino group is substituted to the ortho position of the phenylene linker. A compound in which the amino group is substituted to the ortho position of the phenylene linker would represent a position isomer of the Compound 145 of Ma. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Ma, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and the specific embodiment P-4, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6.
The modification also provides Modified organic electric device of Ma comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an light emitting auxiliary layer (“electron blocking layer”) comprising the Modified compound of Ma, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, the light emitting auxiliary layer, and the light emitting layer are equated with one stack; the electron transport layer and the electron injection layer are equated with another stack; combination of the layers is equated with an organic material layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 7 and 9-11.
Claims 8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 20210130313 A1, hereafter Ma) as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-11 above, further in view of Yoo et al. (US 20160308162 A1, hereafter Yoo).
Regarding claims 8 and 15-17, the Modified organic electric device of Ma reads on all the features of claim 7 and 9-10 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an light emitting auxiliary layer (“electron blocking layer”) comprising the Modified compound of Ma, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The device does not comprises a capping layer.
Yoo discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a capping layer (layer 130 in Fig. 1) which is on the surface of the second electrode (112 in Fig. 1) of the organic light emitting device.
Yoo teaches the capping layer provides constructive interference of light emitted from the device such that it increases efficiency of the light extraction ([0044]).
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 organic electric device of Ma by incorporating a capping layer on the surface of the second electrode as taught by Yoo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide constructive interference of light emitted from the device such that it increases efficiency of the light extraction based on the teaching of Yoo.
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 Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an light emitting auxiliary layer (“electron blocking layer”) comprising the Modified compound of Ma, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a second electrode (cathode), and a capping layer, wherein the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, the light emitting auxiliary layer, and the light emitting layer are equated with one stack; the electron transport layer and the electron injection layer are equated with another stack; combination of the layers is equated with an organic material layer.
Claims 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 20210130313 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2016/0308162 A1) as applied to claims 1-11 and 15-17 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereafter Liao).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 17-18, the Modified organic electric device of Ma reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an light emitting auxiliary layer (“electron blocking layer”) comprising the Modified compound of Ma, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo reads on all the features of claim 8 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an light emitting auxiliary layer (“electron blocking layer”) comprising the Modified compound of Ma, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a second electrode (cathode), and a capping layer.
The Modified organic electric device of Ma and the Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo each does not emit white light and has no charge generation layer.
Liao discloses a stacked organic light emitting device emitting white light ([0016]-[0022], Fig. 7). Liao teaches that the device can be made by stacking three EL units each of which includes a red, green, or blue emitting dopant in the light emitting layer; and each EL units are separated by a charge generation layer (white light emitting device in Fig. 7, and “organic connector”, 230 in Fig. 5).
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 organic electric device of Ma (or Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo) by stacking blue, green, and red EL units between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each EL unit has the same organic material layer structure as that of the Modified organic electric device of Ma (or Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo), except that the light emitting dopant of the light emitting layer of each EL unit is a blue, green, or red dopant, as taught by Ma, Yoo, and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device, 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 the Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Liao comprising a first electrode, a first stack (blue EL unit), a charge generation layer, a second stack (green EL unit), a charge generation layer, a third stack (red EL unit), and a second electrode, wherein each of the stacks has structure of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified compound of Ma), a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and electron injection layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-12.
The modification also provides the Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo and Liao comprising a first electrode, a first stack (blue EL unit), a charge generation layer, a second stack (green EL unit), a charge generation layer, a third stack (red EL unit), a second electrode, and a capping layer, wherein each of the stacks has structure of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified compound of Ma), a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
Claims 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 20210130313 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2016/0308162 A1) as applied to claims 1-11 and 15-17 above, further in view of Ogita et al. (US 2010/0156957 A1, hereafter Ogita).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 19-20, the Modified organic electric device of Ma reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an light emitting auxiliary layer (“electron blocking layer”) comprising the Modified compound of Ma, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo reads on all the features of claim 8 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an light emitting auxiliary layer (“electron blocking layer”) comprising the Modified compound of Ma, a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a second electrode (cathode), and a capping layer.
Ma in view of Yoo does not disclose a specific consumer electronic device such as a television comprising a display device including the Organic electric device of Ma or the Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo and a controller; however, Ma does teach that an organic electric device (i.e. organic electroluminescent device) can comprises a display device ([0119]), and Yoo teaches a pixel device including an organic electric device (100 in [0095] and Fig. 1).
Ogita teaches the structure of a television device (Fig. 5A) comprising a display device (“pixel portion” , 602 in Fig. 3) containing an organic electric device (613, 616, and 617 in Fig. 3) and a controller (“control TFT”, 612 in Fig. 3).
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 organic electric device of Ma (or Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo) by incorporating it into a television device, as taught by Ma, Yoo, and Ogita.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a consumer electronic device of television, based on the teaching of Ogita.
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 organic electric devices in a television device 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 an electronic device (television) comprising a display device (pixel portion) including the Modified organic electric device of Ma (organic electroluminescent device) and a controller for driving the display device (control TFT), meeting all the limitations of claims 13-14.
The modification also provides an electronic device (television) comprising a display device (pixel portion) including the Organic electric device of Ma as modified by Yoo (organic electroluminescent device) and a controller for driving the display device (control TFT), meeting all the limitations of claims 19-20.
Conclusion
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.
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