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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed July 22, 2026, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification, the objection to claims 1-2, 5-10, 12, and 18 and to the specification are withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims,
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention of
claims 1-20,
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form of
claims 7-9,
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Tang et al. (CN 109761967 A) of
claims 1-8, 12, 14, and 15,
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tang as applied above of
claim 13, and
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang as applied above of
claims 17-20,
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang as applied above and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0209916 A1), of
claim 16,
are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-17 were originally filed.
Claims 18-20 have been added.
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 18 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 12-13, and 15 are instantly amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9-14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0125689 A1) and further in view of Kase et al. (US 2020/0365809 A1) have been considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that compound P-63 of Lee is not analogous to the compound of the instant claims because the benzophenanthroheterole of Lee is bonded to the amine nitrogen at a location on the benzene ring of the benzophenanthroheterole, Examiner disagrees in four parts.
First, Examiner notes that the independent claim uses the word “comprises”. The transitional phrase “comprising” is considered to be synonymous with “including” or “containing” or “characterized by”, and is inclusive or open ended and does not exclude addition, unrecited elements (MPEP 2111.03). Thus, there is no requirement for the aromatic amine of the independent claim to be bonded at any particular location on the benzophenanthroheterole structure, or even directly to the benzophenanthroheterole moiety. By using the word “comprises”, the claim encompasses any compound with a benzophenanthroheterole moiety anywhere in the structure.
Second, Examiner does not find any requirement for one of R4 and R5 to be the location of the bond to the amine core. This is supported by the fact that the Markush group containing the definition of R4 and R5 does not include any derivative of an amine group.
Third, General formula 1 of dependent claim 9 clearly demonstrates that a benzophenanthroheterole wherein an amine group is bonded to the benzene portion of that benzophenanthroheterole is clearly meant to be within the limitations of parent claim 1. This possibility is explicitly set forth in General formula I.
Fourth, the instant disclosure contains numerous examples of preferred embodiments of the claimed invention that have a bond between the amine core and the benzene ring of the benzophenanthroheterole moiety. Examiner notes that every single one of the 150 preferred embodiments of a compound with a benzophenanthroheterole moiety of the claimed invention has this bond location. There is not a single example in the instant disclosure to support Applicant’s assertion that the structure of P-63 of Lee is “totally different” than the structure of independent claim or that only the phenanthrene portion of the benzophenanthroheterole moiety of the independent claim can be substituted. Having a bond between the amine nitrogen and the benzene ring of the benzophenanthroheterole moiety is clearly not only within the scope of the claimed invention, but a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention that was known prior to the filing date of the claimed invention (37 CFR 1.56(a)).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that they cannot see what relationship the “N-Ar1” of Formula 16 of Lee has with the benzophenanthrene moiety, please review paragraphs 88-93 of the previous office action which explain that the N-Ar1 moiety is discussed in order to demonstrate Ar1 may be modified to comprise the benzazole ring of Kase in order to greatly improve the light extraction efficiency of the compound while providing a stable thin film and producing an excellent compound for an organic EL device, as taught by Kase.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Kase does not teach a compound wherein X and Y are both carbon atoms, Examiner agrees. The rejection of record relies on a benzazole structure wherein X and Y are both nitrogen atoms (instant M is a nitrogen atom). This structure, which comprises three nitrogen atoms, is discussed in paragraph 95 of the previous office action, and is demonstrated throughout the work of Kase. Examiner notes that such a structure is within the limitations of the instant claims as well.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Kase does not disclose the benzophenanthroheterole structure of the instant independent claim, please review paragraphs 85-88 of the previous office action which explain that the benzophenanthroheterole structure is taught by Lee, not Kase.
In response to applicant's argument that Kase does not teach a benzophenanthroheterole moiety and thus should not be combined with Lee, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case, Lee teaches that the benzophenanthroheterole arylamine may have a third heteroaromatic substituent, and Kase teaches a heteroaromatic substituent for an arylamine which greatly improves the light extraction efficiency of the compound while providing a stable thin film and producing an excellent compound for an organic EL device. Thus, although not taught in a single reference, 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 the heteroaryl group of Kase into the arylamine of Lee in order to greatly improve the light extraction efficiency of the compound while providing a stable thin film and producing an excellent compound for an organic EL device.
With respect to Applicant’s assertion that the use of “benzazole” covers a very large scope of compounds and that the “benzazole” ring set forth by Kase refers to a special 1H-1,2,3-triazole structure, Examiner agrees. Kase uses “benzazole” to refer to the specific 1H-1,2,3-triazole group used throughout the disclosure as a substituent on an arylamine. As discussed above and in paragraph 95 of the previous office action, this “benzazole ring” (1H-1,2,3,-triazole) is the exact group used by Examiner in the rejection of record.
For at least these reasons, the rejections over Lee in view of Kase are maintained.
However, Applicant’s amendments have caused a reinterpretation of the art to explain how the prior art still reads on the amended claims.
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 6 and 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 6, the claim is considered incomplete because it refers to a canceled base claim (claim 2).
In continuing examination, claim 6 is being interpreted as dependent from independent claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, 3-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0125689 A1) and further in view of Kase et al. (US 2020/0365809 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 3-5, Lee discloses a light emitting device comprising a substrate, a first electrode (an anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer (paragraph 0048, line 7), a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer (paragraph 0048, lines 6-7), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and second electrode (a cathode) (paragraphs 0047-0048 and FIG. 1) and a capping layer (paragraph 0049), and the compound of the invention is in the capping layer (paragraph 0049) and has the structure of P-63 (page 19), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound P-63 is derived from Lee Formula 16 (page 8), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
436
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Formula 16, Lee also teaches that that Ar1 can also be an aryl group (paragraph 0072, line 1) which is substituted with a heterocyclic group (paragraph 0073, lines 1-12).
However, Lee does not teach nor fairly suggest that the heterocyclic substituent at Ar1 is a 1H-1,2,3-triazole group.
In analogous art, Kase teaches an arylamine for use in a capping layer which comprises a benzazole (1H-1,2,3-triazole) ring (abstract).
Kase teaches that an amine compound having a benzazole ring structure is stable in a thin film state and has a high light absorption coefficient and high refractive index which can greatly improve light extraction efficiency and provide an excellent compound for use in an organic EL device (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 incorporate the benzazole moiety of Kase as the heterocyclic substituent on the amine compound Lee in order to greatly improve light extraction efficiency of the compound while providing a stable thin film, and thus produce an excellent compound for an organic EL device, as taught by Kase.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the structure of the instant claims when X is an oxygen atom and forms a benzophenanthrofuran group wherein R4 and R5 are hydrogen atoms. The benzophenanthrofuran moiety is directly bonded to the amine nitrogen atom of the aryl amine. The amine nitrogen is also further substituted with a benzo[b]naphtho[2,3-d]furan and a phenylene group which is para substituted with a 1H-1,2,3-triazole group.
With respect to claims 6 and 8, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 1, and the aromatic amine is further substituted with the benzazole (1H-1,2,3-triazole) group of Kase through an arylene group, as discussed above.
Lee also teaches that the divalent arylene group of Ar1 may be a naphthalene group (paragraph 0071, line 4).
Lee includes the claimed linking group, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being a lack of the naphthalene linking group 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 any known linking group from the finite list of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which is able to improve luminescent efficiency, heat resistance, and color purity of an organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound (paragraph 0020), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when L is a naphthalene group which is bonded to the amine nitrogen and the benzazole group of Kase. The benzazole group meets the requirements of the second structure in the second column of the claims when M is a nitrogen atom and R9 is hydrogen.
With respect to claim 9, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 1, and the compound is represented by the structure of general formula I wherein at least one of Ar1 and Ar2 comprises the second moiety of structure 3 wherein A is a nitrogen atom and R14 is a hydrogen atom, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 9, and the other of Ar1 and Ar2 is a C16 heteroaryl (benzo[b]naphtho[2,3-d]furan), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 12, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim because it meets all the limitations of parent claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Lee and Kase reads on the claims.
Lee and Kase are silent to the glass transition temperature of the compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound of Lee and Kase is used as a material in the capping layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obviated by Lee and Kase, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Lee and Kase was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 13, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim because it meets all the limitations of parent claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Lee and Kase reads on the claims.
Lee and Kase are silent to the refractive index of such a compound at a wavelength of 460 nm, 530 nm, and 620 nm. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound of Lee and Kase is used as a material in the capping layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obviated by Lee and Kase, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Lee and Kase was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 14, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 1, and the device comprises a first electrode (an anode), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer (paragraph 0048, line 7), a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer (paragraph 0048, lines 6-7), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and second electrode (a cathode) (paragraphs 0047-0048 and FIG. 1) and a capping layer (paragraph 0049), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 15, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 14, and Lee also teaches that the material of the hole injection layer may be 2-TNATA (paragraph 0209) (a material having hole transmission characteristics), the material of the hole transport/electron blocking layer may be the arylamine described in the prior art (paragraph 0210), material of the hole blocking layer is BAlq (paragraph 0212, a six-membered ring containing a nitrogen atom), and the material of the electro injection layer comprises a metal compound (LiF, paragraph 0213).
Examiner is interpreting the hole transport layer to also act as an electron blocking layer as Lee teaches that the compounds of the prior art demonstrate effective electron blocking abilities (paragraph 0270), and that any layer comprising the compounds could simultaneously transport holes and block electrons.
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 claimed materials in each respective layer of a device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 17, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 1, and Lee also teaches that the invention provides an electronic device including a display device (paragraph 0059).
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 device in a display device, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 17, and none of the groups of the instant claims are required by the parent claim nor present in the instant rejection.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0125689 A1) and further in view of Kase et al. (US 2020/0365809 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0209916 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Lee and Kase teach the device of claim 1, comprising a capping layer, as discussed above.
However, neither Lee nor Kase teach nor fairly suggest a transition layer comprising an organic compound between the capping layer and a TFE encapsulation layer.
In analogous art, Zhang teaches a bonding layer to bond a thin film encapsulation layer and a transparent cover film layer (paragraph 0011).
Zhang teaches that the adhesive layer may be made of a dam adhesive, for example, epoxy resin (an organic compound).
Zhang teaches that the material of the cover plate can be selected according to actual needs as long as the refractive index of the cover plate is less than the refractive index of the transparent film cover (capping layer, paragraph 0065), and that including such a film improves the ability of the display layer to block the erosion of water and oxygen in the environment and ensure the display layer has good display properties (paragraph 0119)
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 form a transition layer of an organic material between the capping layer of Lee and Kase and a film encapsulation layer which has a refractive index less than the refractive index of the capping layer in order to improve the ability of the display layer to block the erosion of water and oxygen in the environment and ensure the display layer has good display properties, as taught by Zhang.
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 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