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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment received on 11 June 2026. Claims 1, 9, 16, and 18 are amended; claims 2-8, 10, 15, 17, and 18 are cancelled; and claims 20-24 are new. Claims 1, 9, 11-14, 16 and 19-24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s certified English language translation of the priority document of CN Application No. 202011135326 to perfect the foreign priority claim.
The objection to the Drawing as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11 June 2026. The objection is withdrawn.
The objection to the Specification as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11 June 2026. The objection is withdrawn.
The rejections to claim 15-17 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Lee (EP 3715437A1) as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 11-14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP 3715437A1) as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 10, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP 3715437A1) in view of Parham (WO 2014/067614) as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the Lee reference (EP 3715437A1) and the Parham reference (WO 2014/067614), applicant points out that (1) Lee’s compound H1-27 fails to make claim 1 obvious, (2) the compounds disclosed in claim 1 are critical to the performance of the device which is not disclosed by Lee’s compound H1-27, and (3) Parham fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lee. New rejections based on Lee (EP 3715437A1) rely on a different embodiment or a reinterpretation of the reference. For example, new rejections are based on the Modified Compound H1-27 of Lee. As shown further in the rejection below, Lee still renders obvious the claimed invention.
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
The data shown in Table 12 is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that the data is shown for the use of instant compound 1 in the electron blocking layer of a device, whereas the claimed is directed to a compound. New rejections are not based on a compound of instant compound 1, but on a compound of instant compound 186 as discussed below. The improved properties of service life are shown when the compound 1 is used in an electron blocking layer of an OLED (and with other compounds present in the same layer). None of these limitations are required by the claim. No evidence has been provided to show that the unexpected results would be present for the use of the compound in other layers, or with other compounds present in the same layer.
Given that compounds 1 and 186 are not identical in structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the properties between the compounds to be identical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would expect some degree of variability between the service life and thus it is not clear that the difference in service life is truly unexpected.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 define a chemical formula 1, 2, and 3 wherein the group Ar1 is represented by any one of substituted or unsubstituted dibenzofuran or substituted or unsubstituted biphenyl. It is unclear how the dibenzofuran is a separate group outside of a substituted biphenyl, because dibenzofuran is a biphenyl group substituted with oxygen wherein the oxygen is condensed to form a ring with the two phenyl groups. Therefore, claims 1 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will (1) treat the dibenzofuran group as a separate selection outside of the group containing the substituted biphenyl and (2) interpret substituted Ar1 as not allowed to condense to form fused rings.
Claim 9 recites specific compounds 2, 11, 1028, 1249, 1251, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, and 1261 which read on the claimed chemical formulas 1-3 of claim 1 wherein either Ar1 or Ar2 are phenyl. However, independent claim 1 (of which claim 9 depends upon) recites the newly added proviso/amendment that requires Ar1 is selected from dibenzofuran and biphenyl and Ar2 is selected from biphenyl. Since compounds 2, 11, 1028, 1249, 1251, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, and 1261 do not satisfy the proviso/amendment, it is unclear how the compounds listed above read on the amended claim. For purposes of examination, compounds 2, 11, 1028, 1249, 1251, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, and 1261 will be interpreted as not present.
Claims 11-14, 16 and 19-24 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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 9 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.
As discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 9, compounds including, but not limited to 2, 11, 1028, 1249, 1251, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, and 1261 contain either Ar1 or Ar2 as unsubstituted phenyl; however, there is no language in claim 1 that enables Ar1 or Ar2 to be selected as phenyl. Therefore, the compounds including, but not limited to, the options listed above do not properly depend from claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
1698
1436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (EP3715437A1, hereinafter "Lee").
Lee discloses, in the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, a compound of Formula 2 containing a nitrogen atom may further follow Formula 2-1 wherein CY1 and CY2 are phenyl, shown below (pg 4). Lee discloses preferred embodiments for compounds of Formula 2 including compounds H1-14, H1-27, and H1-28 shown below (pg 51).
PNG
media_image2.png
1640
2465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compounds H1-14, H1-27, and H1-28 teaches that:
a compound with the phenyl-substituted carbazole core of H1-27 and H1-28 may be substituted with a diaryl amine moiety,
the diaryl amine moiety may be phenyl groups as in H1-27,
the diaryl amine moiety may be substituted phenyl as in H1-28,
and the diaryl amine moiety may be biphenyl as shown in H1-14.
Lee does not particularly limit the identity of the diaryl amine substitution, defining that Ar5 in Formula 2 may be substituted with -N(Q1)(Q2) wherein Q1 and Q2 may be C6-C60 aryl group.
Lee further teaches that the compound may be used in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device including a “a first electrode; a second electrode; and an organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer, wherein the organic layer includes the composition” (¶ [0155]). Lee teaches specific devices containing a compound of the Formula 2 of Lee including devices Example 1-3 that contain the compound H1-14 (Table 1). Compound H1-14 is a compound of Formula 2 of Lee where CY3 is a C10 carbocyclic group and Ar5 is a single bond with R65 being an amino group substituted with biphenyls.
Lee further teaches that devices containing compound H1-14 display a high Max EQE efficiency, improved driving voltage, and a long lifetime (Table 1, ¶ [0232]). In addition, Lee teaches, more generally, compositions including the first compound, the second compound, and the third compound of Lee are suitable for use in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device that may have a low driving voltage, high external quantum efficiency, and a long lifespan (¶ [0155]).
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 modify the compound H1-27 of Lee wherein Q1 and Q2 of -N(Q1)(Q2) are each biphenyl based on the teachings of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with low driving voltage, high external quantum efficiency, and a long lifespan as taught by Lee (¶ [0155]).
The resulting Modified Compound H1-27 is shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Compound H1-27 of Lee
The Modified Compound H1-27 of Lee is a compound of instant claim 1 wherein:
Represented by Chemical Formula 2;
L, L1, and L2 are single bond;
Ar1 is unsubstituted biphenyl;
Ar2 is unsubstituted biphenyl;
N1 is 0;
Represented by compound 186 in claim 9.
Therefore, the Modified Compound H1-27 of Lee reads on claims 1, 9, and 16.
Lee further teaches that the compound may be used in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device including a “a first electrode; a second electrode; and an organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer, wherein the organic layer includes the composition” (¶ [0155]). Lee teaches specific devices containing a compound of the Formula 2 of Lee including devices Example 1-3 that contain the compound H1-14 (Table 1). Compound H1-14 is a compound of Formula 2 of Lee where CY3 is a C10 carbocyclic group and Ar5 is a single bond with R65 being an amino group substituted with biphenyls.
Lee further teaches that devices containing compound H1-14 display a high Max EQE efficiency, improved driving voltage, and a long lifetime (Table 1, ¶ [0232]). In addition, Lee teaches, more generally, compositions including the first compound, the second compound, and the third compound of Lee are suitable for use in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device that may have a low driving voltage, high external quantum efficiency, and a long lifespan (¶ [0155]). Lee teaches the above; however, Lee is silent to a specific device that contains the Modified Compound H1-27.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute compound H1-27 in the organic light emitting device containing H1-14 of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve a device with low driving voltage, high external quantum efficiency, and a long life-span as taught by Lee. Such a modified device would read on instant claims 11-12 and 14.
Regarding claim 13, Lee describes an embodiment where the emission layer may include a host and a dopant wherein the dopant may include the first compound and the host may include the second and third compound. Furthermore, Lee teaches the emission layer may include any dopant or host in addition to the composition described. Lee teaches the organic light-emitting device is a full-color organic light-emitting device where the emission layer may be patterned into a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer (pg 67, ¶ [0184] -- [0193]).
Regarding instant claims 19-24, Lee teaches that when the hole transport region of the organic light-emitting device of Lee includes an electron blocking layer, the material for the electron blocking layer be any combination of the materials described above including a nitrogen containing compound of Formula 2 (¶ [0155] – [0211]).
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 LUCAS Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Fridays 7:45 am to 12:00 pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/L.Q.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights