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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on May 21, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, and 15 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed March 2, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as set forth in the office action filed March 2, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park as set forth in the office action filed March 2, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakamoto as set forth in the office action filed March 2, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 15 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as set forth in the office action filed March 2, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 15 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto as set forth in the office action filed March 2, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 12 and 15 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno as set forth in the office action filed March 2, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 11, 13 and 15 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park 2 as set forth in the office action filed March 2, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sakamoto fails to teach the technical features of amended claim 1 because compounds such as compound 135 are minority compounds in Sakamoto and Sakamoto does not disclose the synthesis and performance test of the compound. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection below, Sakamoto defines Ar1 as being selected from a group including naphthobenzofuran and benzonaphthothiophene groups ([0027]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the specific nphthobenzofuran in compound 135 with a different isomer of naphthobenzofuran, such as naphtho[2,3-b]benzofuran an arrive at the claimed invention. Examiner notes while compound 135 has not been specifically tested in the disclosure of Sakamoto, the invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that “Ar1 is selected from the group consisting of formula I, formula II, and formula III.” However, the structure of formula I has been deleted. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is intended as the “formula I” recited in the claim. Additionally, the claim refers to R1, R2, R6, and R7 and their corresponding n variables however the variables are not present in any of the claimed formulae. Therefore, it is unclear which variables R1, R2, R6, and R7 may be referring to. Claim 10 also refers to variables R1 and R2.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as only allow for a selection between formula II and formula III.
Claims 2 – 12 and 14 – 18 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 15 recites that an electronic component contains an anode, a cathode and a functional layer, wherein “the functional layer comprises the organic compound.” Claim 15 then proceeds to recite that “the functional layer comprises an electron blocking layer, and the electron blocking layer comprises the organic compound.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim is requiring that more than one layer contains the organic compound, i.e. the electron blocking layer and some other part of the functional layer.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as only requiring one layer in the electronic component containing the organic compound.
Claims 16 – 18 are rejected as being dependent on claim 15.
Examiner recommends amending the claim to remove the language “wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound according to claim 1” and amending the end of the claim to recite “the electron blocking layer comprises the organic compound according to claim 1.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 is dependent from claim 1, in which Ar1 is required to be selected form formula II or formula III and the X variable is selected from O, S, N and Si. However, at least compounds 348 – 351 do not contain a group of formula II or formula III and at least compounds 447 and 448 contain a carbon in the claimed X variable position, which is outside of the claimed formula. Therefore, claim 14 appears to fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 12 and 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US20230012692A1).
As per claims 1 – 12, Sakamoto teaches:
An organic compound with a structure shown in formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
108
146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Sakamoto teaches compounds of Formula 1-A
PNG
media_image2.png
198
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0011]). Sakamoto defines Ar1 as being selected from a group including naphthobenzofuran and benzonaphthothiophene groups ([0027]). Sakamoto teaches compound 135
PNG
media_image3.png
248
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which contains a specific naphtho[1,2-b]benzofuran group which is outside of the claimed formula. However, the definitions of Ar1 are not limited to this particular isomer of naphthobenzofurans and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a different isomer of naphthobenzofuran, such as naphtho[2,3-b]benzofuran. When Ar1 of compound 135 is modified to include a naphtho[2,3-b]benzofuran, the modified compound which reads on the claimed formula wherein Ar1 is selected from a group of formula II
PNG
media_image4.png
88
162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein X is O, namely a group of
PNG
media_image5.png
72
86
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 12; n6 and n7 are both 0 so that R6 and R7 do not exist; Ar2 is an unsubstituted aryl with 10 carbons atoms, namely a naphthyl group as required by claim 7,
PNG
media_image6.png
46
68
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 8, and
PNG
media_image7.png
48
72
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 9; L1 is a direct bond and L2 is an unsubstituted arylene with 10 carbon atoms, namely a naphthylene group as required by claim 3,
PNG
media_image8.png
42
90
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 4, and
PNG
media_image9.png
50
76
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 5.)
Sakamoto includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Sakamoto being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and life characteristics (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 15 – 18, Sakamoto teaches:
An electronic component comprising an anode, a cathode, and a functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound and the electronic component is an organic light-emitting device (Abstract: “A light emitting device includes a first electrode, a second electrode disposed on the first electrode, and at least one functional layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode. The at least one functional layer includes an amine compound represented by Formula 1.” As an organic light-emitting device is an electronic device, Sakamoto teaches the limitations of claims 17 and 18.)
The functional layer comprises an electron blocking layer, and the electron blocking layer comprises the organic compound ([0024]: “In an embodiment, the hole transport region may include a hole injection layer disposed on the first electrode, a hole transport layer disposed on the hole injection layer, and an electron blocking layer disposed on the hole transport layer, and at least one of the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, and the electron blocking layer may include the amine compound.”)
Sakamoto teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Sakamoto as Sakamoto demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 12 and 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2022045743A1, using the provided machine translation) in view of Park (US20230111469A1).
As per claims 1 – 12, Kim teaches:
An organic compound with a structure shown in formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
108
146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches compounds represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image10.png
234
338
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein at least one of R3 is a triarylamine group, wherein one of the aryl groups is a substituted or unsubstituted C6 – C20 aryl ([0018 – 0033]). A particular compound taught by Kim is compound
PNG
media_image11.png
134
168
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, in which there is a phenyl linking group from the amine core and a phenyl substituent on the naphthyl group. However, Kim teaches that the substituted naphthyl group may be selected from
PNG
media_image12.png
64
158
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, wherein the naphthyl group is boned to the linking group through one of the phenyl rings of the naphthyl group and contains a phenyl substituent on the other ring of the naphthyl group ([0160 – 0162]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the bonding pattern of the naphthyl substituent in the specific compound taught by Kim and arrive at the claimed invention. Furthermore, Park teaches similar triarylamine compounds represented by Formula 20
PNG
media_image13.png
202
328
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0013]), which contains the same naphthyl bonding pattern as that claimed. Kim teaches that the structure creates a state of steric hindrance that lowers the crystallization of the thin film and can improve the hole mobility by reducing the planarity of the molecule ([0358]). Therefore, it would additionally have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select the particularly claimed bonding pattern motivated by the desire to create steric hindrance to lower the crystallinity and improve the hole mobility in the resulting compound as taught by Park ([0358]). When the naphthyl substituent in the compound of Kim is modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar1 is selected from formula III
PNG
media_image14.png
98
112
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein X is S, namely a group of
PNG
media_image15.png
74
72
media_image15.png
Greyscale
as required by claim 12; n10 and n11 are 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist; Ar2 is a substituted heteroaryl with 12 carbon atoms, wherein the substituent is an aryl with 6 carbon atoms, namely a substituted carbazolyl with a phenyl substituent as required by claim 7, specifically
PNG
media_image16.png
64
72
media_image16.png
Greyscale
in claim 8 and
PNG
media_image17.png
78
70
media_image17.png
Greyscale
in claim 9; L1 and L2 are both a single bond. The compound is the same as claimed compound 100 in claim 14.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of lowered voltage and increased efficiency ([0590]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the particular bonding pattern claimed among the range of bonding patterns taught by Kim motivated by the desire to create steric hindrance to lower the crystallinity and improve the hole mobility in the resulting compound as taught by Park ([0358]).
As per claims 15 – 18, Kim teaches:
An electronic component comprising an anode, a cathode, and a functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer arranged between the anode and the cathode, wherein the functional layer comprises the organic compound and the electronic component is an organic light-emitting device ([0293]: “Fig. 2 illustrates an example of organic light-emitting comprising a substrate (1), an anode (2), a hole injection layer (5), a hole transport layer (6), an electron suppression layer (7), a light-emitting layer (3), a hole blocking layer (8), an electron injection and transport layer (9), and a cathode (4).” As an organic light-emitting device is an electronic device, Kim teaches the limitations of claims 17 and 18.)
The functional layer comprises an electron blocking layer, and the electron blocking layer comprises the organic compound ([0294]: “Specifically, the compound represented by the above chemical formula 1 may be included as the electron suppression layer material.” The electron suppression layer material is interpreted as the claimed “electron blocking layer.”)
Kim teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Kim as Kim demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The compounds of US20230013038A1, and the teachings of [0131] could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights