DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/26/26.
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 objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 11 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The objection to Claims 1-10 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 6 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 5 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (WO 2018/159937 A1) in view of Radu et al. (US 2016/0329497 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (WO 2018/159937 A1) in view of Radu et al. (US 2016/0329497 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/03/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (WO 2018/159937 A1) in view of Radu et al. (US 2016/0329497 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2019/0237669 A1 as the English equivalent of WO publication WO 2018/159937 A1 (herein referred to “Kang et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Kang et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image1.png
404
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1) comprising substrate (101), anode (201), hole-injecting layer (301) (first organic material layer), hole-transporting layer (401) (second organic material layer), light-emitting layer (501), electron-injecting/transporting layer (601), and cathode (701) ([0036]-[0042]); the hole-injecting layer comprises the following fluorene-based composition ([0213], [0318]):
PNG
media_image2.png
178
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0012]) where m1-2 = independently 2-12, X1-2 = photocurable group, n1-4 = 0-5, and R1 and R4 = independently hydrogen, deuterium, and halogen (among others) ([0016]-[0018], [0023]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image3.png
354
900
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 17) such that n = n’ = 1, R1 = R3 = halogen (F), m = m’ = n1-3 = m1-3 = 0, L1-2 = direct bond or methylene group, and X1-2 = curing group of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. However, Kang et al. does not explicitly disclose 1) a compound that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2, particularly in regards to the nature of the curing group nor 2) a copolymer of Chemical Formula 3.
Regarding point 1, it would have been obvious to modify Compound 20 as disclosed by Kang et al. (above) such that the curing group is the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
44
96
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(with L1-2 = methylene group of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one linking group (hexylene) for a functional equivalent (ethylene) which can be easily envisioned from the scope of Kang et al.’s general formula (in regards to the scope of m1-2); additional motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves a homologous change in the number of carbon atoms in the alkylene linkage (from six to two) producing a compound that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding point 2, Radu et al. discloses the following hole-transporting copolymer:
PNG
media_image5.png
38
210
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0009]) where a+b+c =1 (with a and b being nonzero), A = monomeric unit containing at least one triarylamine group, B’ = monomeric unit having at least three points of attachment in the copolymer, C’ = aromatic monomeric unit (or deuterated analog), and E = groups such as hydrogen, deuterium, among others ([0010]-[0014]). Alternatively, the formula is written in a different format:
PNG
media_image6.png
56
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0064]) where z = integer greater than 3, a1 = b1 = c1 = e1 = are independently mole fractions (with a1+b1+c1+e1 = 1 and a1, b1 = non-zero), and * indicates a point of attachment in the copolymer ([0065]-[0067]). The copolymer has a molecular weight of 10,000-500,000 g/mol ([0080]). Radu et al. discloses that there can be 100% deuteration ([0077]); an embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image7.png
330
820
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 54) such that q = 0, Ar2-3 = substituted arylene group, and Ar1 = unsubstituted arylene group (biphenylene) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula A-2; Ar8 = aromatic cyclic group (benzene) and k6-8 = 0 of Applicant’s Chemical Formula B’-1. Its inventive copolymers are utilized as material comprising the hole-transporting layer, the use of which results in a device with increased efficiency ([0297], [0305], [0360]-[0390]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the copolymer as disclosed by Radu et al. into the hole-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kang et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Radu et al., which is directed to a viable hole-transporting material, the use of which results in a device with increased efficiency.
Response to Arguments
13. The Applicant argues on page 17 that “the Examiner has not provided any articular as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify that compound” to arrive at the Applicant’s claimed invention; furthermore, the Applicant has argued for unexpected results based on the data provided in the present Specification. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that Kang et al. discloses that its inventive compounds are of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
178
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0012]) where m1-2 = independently 2-12, X1-2 = photocurable group, and L1-2 = substituted or unsubstituted alkylene group ([0051], [0055], [0060]). The motivation to arrive at a compound wherein the curing group is the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
44
96
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(such that L1-2 = methylene group of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1) merely involves an exchange of one linking group (hexylene) for a functional equivalent (ethylene) which can be easily envisioned from the scope of Kang et al.’s general formula (in regards to the scope of m1-2); additional motivation exists, as the modification merely involves a homologous change in the number of carbon atoms in the alkylene linkage (from six to two) producing a compound that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Notice MPEP 2144.09(I)-(II) which states the following:
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).
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).
It is thus the position of the Office that the modification as proposed in the above rejection results from the expectation that the homolog (which merely differs in the length of the alkylene chain) is of such close structural similarity to the original compound such that it would have had similar properties, providing sufficient motivation to one of ordinary skill the art to make the claimed compound.
The Office further finds the data presented by the Applicant unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Notice the rather limited number of compounds tested in the present Specification compared to the rather broad scope of compounds of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 1 and 3, producing organic light-emitting devices with properties which cannot be reasonably extrapolated to the full scope of the claims.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights