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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 01/06/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 05/21/2026, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification, and drawings, the objection to claim 15 and the specification are withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claim 14 as failing to comply with the written description requirement, the rejection under 112(b) of claims 1-15 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 as being anticipated by Ha et al. (WO 2019/139419 A1), and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 15 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (KR 2017/0138799 A) and Lui et al. (KR 2019/0079343 A), and of claim 14 as being unpatentable over Baek and Lui above and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1), are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-15 were originally filed.
Claims 14 and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 5 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-13 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Examiner’s modification of Baek renders the invention inoperable for its intended purpose because Baek is drawn to a blue fluorescent device and Lui is drawn to a red or green host material, Examiner disagrees.
Examiner first notes that Baek teaches a hole transport material, not a compound of an emitting layer. There is no reason to believe that the hole transporting material of Baek could not be used in a device with a different emissive wavelength, particularly as a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that hole transport layers are usually used as a common layer, rather than being specific an individual emissive layer. Second, Examiner notes that Lui teaches that the emissive layer composition is suitable for use with a blue, red, or green phosphorescent dopant, and is not reserved only for red emission. Hence, there is no teaching away or implication that the two compounds could not be used in different layers of a single device, particularly because the two compounds serve completely different purposes.
Third, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lui teaches a composition for the light-emitting layer (paragraph 0209) of an organic light-emitting device, which gives the device high power efficiency (paragraph 0318) and long-life (paragraph 0008). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light-emitting composition of Lui in the device of Baek in order to achieve a light-emitting layer which gives a light-emitting device with high power efficiency and long-life, as taught by Lui.
With respect to Applicant’s argument of unexpected results, Examiner disagrees in two parts.
First, it is noted that applicant has only provided data from one trial of each compound from a single device structure. There is not enough evidence to support Applicant’s assertion that that these same results would be observed over a statistical analysis of multiple trials and multiple device structures. Without a statement of standard deviation, it is unclear whether these data represent a statistically significant improvement over the comparison devices or whether these data fall within standard deviation.
Second, the data presented is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because data has only been presented for a narrow scope of similar compounds, while the claims are drawn to an exceedingly broad genus of compounds that may comprise exceedingly broad groups such as any C6-C60 aryl group and any C2-C60 heterocyclic group (see for example the definition of Ar1 through Ar7). This surely represents thousands of compounds while data for only 18 combinations of compounds have been presented.
For these reasons, it is unclear whether these data represent a statistically significant improvement, and whether the full breadth of the claimed compounds would demonstrate these same advantageous properties.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are respectfully maintained.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (KR 2017/0138799 A, using the previously provided translation for references) and further in view of Lui et al. (KR 2019/0079343 A, using the previously provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Baek discloses an organic electronic element (an organic electroluminescent device), comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic material layer which includes an emitting layer (paragraph 0017), and a hole transport band (paragraph 0057), and the hole transport layer comprises a compound of the invention (paragraph 0157), such as compound 26 (page 6 of the untranslated document), which is recreated below for the sake of clarity.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hole transport compound 26 meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when X is oxygen, i is 1, L1 is a single bond, Ar1 is a C12 heterocyclic (dibenzofuranyl) group, and Ar2 is a C12 (biphenyl) group, j is 0 and L2, Ar3, and Ar4 are not present, and a, b, c, and d are 0 so that R1, R2, R3, and R4 are not present.
However, Baek does not teach nor fairly suggest a compound of instant Formula 2 as a material in the light emitting layer.
In analogous art, Lui teaches a composition for the light-emitting layer (paragraph 0209) of an organic light-emitting device, which gives the device high power efficiency (paragraph 0318) and long-life (paragraph 0008).
Lui teaches that this composition includes a compound of Chemical Formula 1 (paragraph 0012), such as compound B-102, which is pictured below (page 10 of the untranslated document).
PNG
media_image2.png
366
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Light emitting host compound B-102 meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when X1, X2, and X3 are each a nitrogen atom, L3 and L4 are each a C6 arylene (phenylene) group, L5 is a single bond, Ar5 and Ar6 are both a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, and Ar7 is a C12 heterocyclic (dibenzofuranyl) group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light-emitting composition of Lui in the device of Baek in order to achieve a light-emitting layer which gives a light-emitting device with high power efficiency and long-life, as taught by Lui.
With respect to claim 2, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and the compound represented by Formula 1 is also represented by instant Formula 1-1 for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 3, Baek and Lui teach the organic light emitting element of claim 1, and the compound represented by Formula 1 is also represented by instant Formula 1-8, for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Baek and Lui teach the organic light emitting element of claim 1, and Ar1 is a C12 heterocyclic (dibenzofuranyl) group, which meets the requirements of instant Formula B-1 when V1 is an oxygen atom, V2 is a single bond, and rings A and B are a C6 aryl (benzene) group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 5, Baek and Lui teach the organic light emitting element of claim 1, as discussed above.
Compound 26, pictured and discussed above, is derived from Baek Chemical formula a, which is pictured below (page 3 of the untranslated document).
PNG
media_image3.png
264
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Baek also teaches that Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (paragraph 0016).
Such a modification produces instant compound 1-6.
Baek includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Baek being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 a C6 aryl substituent from the finite list of possible substituents are arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with suitable energy levels, electrochemical stability, and thermal stability (paragraph 0006), which is suitable for use in the hole transport layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0157), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 6, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and Ar7 is a C12 heterocyclic (dibenzofuranyl) group, which meets the requirements of instant Formula 2-1 when X4 is oxygen, e and f are each 0, and R8 and R9 are not present, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and the compound represented by Formula 2, is also represented by instant Formula 2-7 for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and L3 and L4 are each a C6 arylene (phenylene) group, which is instant Formula b-1, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 2 is identical to instant compound 2-9.
With respect to claim 10, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, and Baek teaches that the hole transport band includes a hole transport layer (paragraph 0057), and the hole transport layer comprises the compound (paragraph 0157), as discussed above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (KR 2017/0138799 A, using the previously provided translation for references) and further in view of Lui et al. (KR 2019/0079343 A, using the previously provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Liu (US 2015/0155524 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Baek and Lui teaches the organic electronic element of claim 1, as discussed above. However, this differs from the claimed invention in that neither Baek nor Lui teaches a light efficiency enhancing layer on the face of an electrode opposite the organic layer(s).
In analogous art, Liu teaches a device configuration except that it includes a light efficiency enhancing layer on the light emitting surface of the claimed device structure.
Liu teaches that this layer can effectively be used to adjust the chromaticity coordinates and improve the light emitting efficiency of the device (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light emitting efficiency enhancing layer onto the surface of an electrode opposite to the organic layer(s) in the device of Baek and Lui, in order to adjust the chromaticity coordinate of the device and improve the light emitting efficiency, as taught by Liu.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (KR 2017/0138799 A, using the previously provided translation for references) and further in view of Lui et al. (KR 2019/0079343 A, using the previously provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Hatwar et al. (US 2010/0288362 A1).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Baek and Lui teach the organic electronic element of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Baek nor Lui teach a plurality of light-emitting layers, each comprising a hole transport layer, an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer, which are separated by a charge generation layer.
In analogous art, Hatwar teaches an organic electronic device comprising at least two organic phototransducing units which are separated by an intermediate connecting region (“The layers that make up the connecting region can have various names such as a charge generation layer(s)”, paragraph 0002).
Hatwar teaches the structure of a tandem OLED comprising a green, red, and blue light emitting region in Figure 3, which is pictured below, and which has been annotated using the definitions in paragraph [0100] to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image4.png
686
772
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This meets the requirements of the instant claim as it comprises 2 or more stacks, each comprising a hole transport layer, an emitting layer, and an electron transport layer, and which are separated by a charge generation layer (intermediate connecting region, i.e. charge generation layer, 340, Figure 3).
Hatwar teaches that embodiments of the invention can provide organic EL devices that have good luminance efficiency, good operational stability, and reduced drive voltages (paragraph 0131).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device structure taught by Baek and Lui as one or more layer in the tandem device of Hatwar in order to provide an EL device that has good luminance efficiency, good operational stability, and reduced drive voltage, as taught by Hatwar.
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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights