DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received June 11, 2026. Claims 1-3 were amended. Claim 5 is a canceled claim. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending. Amendment to the specification is acknowledged.
Rejections over claim 5 are withdrawn due to the claim cancellation.
The rejections of claims 2 and 3 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subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention set forth in the last office action are withdrawn due to the claim amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2020/218680 A1) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment.
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 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/218680 A1; an English language translation copy was previously provided and is referred to below).
Lee et al. discloses organic compounds for organic electroluminescent devices (see title and abstract). General Formula 1 is taught (see par. [10] of translation copy page 3) with definitions provided below the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
232
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
More specifically, the Formula 1 may be Formulas 4 to 10 (see pages 6-7 of translation). At least Formula 4 is the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
276
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
In the Formula 4 of Formula 1, X may be O or S (see par. 12), Ar1to Ar3 may be aryl or heteroaryl (par. 16), L2 may be arylene or heteroarylene (see par. 15). More specifically, linker group L2 as a heteroarylene may be a group “Link 6” (par. 59) where Y1 may be O, S, or C(R4)(R5) with respect to instant groups having instant variables V1 and V2 in claims 3 and 4 with bonding to any portion of the ring group:
PNG
media_image3.png
96
130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Also, note that heteroarylene is generally taught as a suitable linker group and dibenzofuran is recognized as a known heteroarylene within compounds (see par. 56, 57, 98-115, 122).
With respect to Lee Ar1, specific Ar1 group is taught to include “S6” (see par. 66, 68) with bonding to any location of the group (including a “1” position when corresponding to a dibenzofuran group):
PNG
media_image4.png
82
108
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
While Lee et al. does not exemplify all possible compounds within Formula 1 that also meet the requirements of instant Formula 1 (instant claims 1-4), groups are defined for a Formula 1 which would result in compounds within recited Formula 1 of claim 1 and specific compounds of dependent claims 2-4 (par. 10-19 and 39-96). With further respect to claims 3 and 4, it is not seen where an example Formula 1 compound is shown where Ar1 was specifically selected as group S6 in combination with selecting the linking group as Link6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have formed compounds of Formula 1 comprising groups as specifically defined for Formula 1 by Lee et al. One would expect to achieve functional Formula 1 compounds within the disclosure of Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to device claim 6, Lee et al. teaches the compounds of Formula 1 are used in an “organic material layer” between electrodes in a light-emitting device structure (see Lee par. 37 on page 5 of translation). With respect to claim 8, “organic material layer” as a whole (300) (see Fig. 1 and 2) includes a light emitting layer (340) (see par. 26-29). While it is not seen where an example device was formed using a Formula 1 compound the same as instant Formula 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected compounds as defined for Formula 1 by Lee et al. for a device structure as discussed above where the compound and device would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a device within the disclosure of Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 202/218680 A1; an English language translation copy was previously provided and is referred to below) in view of Jung et al. (US 2016/0149141 A1).
Lee et al. is relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
Lee et al. teaches arylamine compounds of Formula 1 for use in a light emitting device as discussed in the above rejection over claim 1; however, it is not seen where Lee et al. teaches specifically to use the arylamine compounds in a capping layer on the outer portion of one or two of the electrodes. In analogous art, Jung et al. teaches using amine-based compounds (see abstract) in capping layer(s) on the electrodes of a device (see claim 20 on page 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a capping layer as described by Jung et al. comprised of amine-based formula 1 compounds as taught by Lee et al. as part of a sealing layer for protecting a light-emitting device, because one would expect a capping layer as suggested by Jung et al. formed of an amine-based compound selected from formula (1) compounds taught by Lee et al. to be useful for protecting a device display according to Lee et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Lee et al. in view of Jung et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 202/218680 A1; an English language translation copy was previously provided and is referred to below) in view of Pieh (US 2012/0097998A1).
Lee et al. is relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Lee does not appear to specifically teach:
Wherein the organic material layer comprises two or more stacks
The stacks comprise the hole transport layer, the light emitting layer and the electron transport layer formed sequentially on the anode
Wherein the organic electric element further comprises the charge generation layer formed between the stacks
In analogous art, Pieh teaches a white organic light emitting device with a first stack including a first light emitting layer and a second stack with a second light emitting layer and a charge generating layer in between (Abstract). Fig. 1, as described in ([0045]) shows that each stack has a hole transport layer, light emitting layer and an electron transport layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Lee as one stack in a multi-stack light emitting device, motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED that emits white light as taught by Pieh (Abstract).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 202/218680 A1; an English language translation copy was previously provided and is referred to below) in view of Park (US 2015/0221873A1).
Lee et al. is relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Lee teaches a light emitting device for a display (par. 22). Lee teaches does appear specifically to discuss:
A control unit for driving the display device and
Wherein the organic electric element is selected from the group consisting of an organic electroluminescent element, an organic solar cell, an organic photo conductor, an organic transistor, an element for monochromatic illumination and an element for quantum dot display.
In analogous art, Park teaches an electroluminescent device for use with a terminal (Abstract). The terminal includes a control unit for driving the display device ([0056]). These terminals can be used in an organic solar cell, or an organic transistor (Claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Lee with a control unit in an organic solar cell or an organic transistor because Park establishes that this is a suitable use for OLEDs. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to an obviousness rejection over Lee, applicant argues instant L1 and L2 are now required to be single bond and when instant X2-containing group is dibenzofuran, the group bonds at the “1” position. Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive. With respect to instant L1 and L2 being single bond, the office submits Lee clearly teaches a single group may be between the nitrogens of the Formula 1. The fact that Lee may also teach compounds outside the scope of what is claimed does not negate the teachings of compounds within the recited instant formula. MPEP 2123 states “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). With respect to bonding of the 1-position of a dibenzofuran, the office submits the general teachings of Lee provide for bonding at the location while an example compound may not explicitly show the 1-position bonding. Note that a bonding line is drawn into the center of the dibenzofuran group taught by Lee (par. 66 “S6”). Further note per MPEP 2123, “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 423 (CCPA 1971).” Applicant’s representative suggests improved results when bonding at the 1-position of a dibenzofuran group (page 16 of arguments), but does not discuss specific data commensurate in scope with the claims and the closest prior art with respect to the alleged improvement. MPEP 716.01(c) sets forth “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)”. Further with respect to MPEP 716.02, “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. In the absence of persuasive evidence of non-obviousness, an obviousness rejection over Lee is respectfully maintained.
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights