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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on October 28, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on May 7, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 7, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Shin does not specifically disclose a compound in which Ar1 and Ar2 in Chemical Formula 1 as claimed are substituted with (F)m1 and (F)m2 and that Comparative Example 2 in the instant application uses Compound CE2, which is Compound 68 of Shin. Applicant notes that Compound CE2 provides the OLED with inferior characteristics. This is not found persuasive because as noted in the rejection below, the teachings of Shin encompass fluorinated compounds and Shin renders the claimed invention obvious. With respect to the properties of the OLED, Examiner notes that claim 1 is directed to a compound, not the use of the compound in a particular layer of a device, and therefore any discussion of the improvement of properties is not considered to be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method for manufacturing an organic light emitting device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1 – 12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on February 16, 2023 and May 1, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/681705 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 in instant claim 1 overlap in scope with compounds of Chemical Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘705 application as evidenced by the compounds in claim 9 of the ‘705 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 21 of copending Application No. 18/849642 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 in instant claim 1 overlap in scope with compounds of Chemical Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘642 application as evidenced by compounds on Page 11 of claim 6 of the ‘642 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/861353 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 in instant claim 1 overlap in scope with compounds of Chemical Formula 1 in claims 1 of the ‘353 application as evidenced by compounds on page 12 of claim 9 of the ‘353 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR20190035513A, using US20200259095A1 as the official English language translation) in view of Lim (WO2021154041A1, using US20230354697A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 1 – 9, Shin teaches:
A compound represented by Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
212
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Shin teaches compounds of Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image2.png
156
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0124]). A specific compound Shin teaches within the scope of Chemical Formula 2 is Compound 68
PNG
media_image3.png
288
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. While compound 68 does not contain a fluorine on the phenyl rings off of the amino group as required by the claim, Shin teaches that Ar1 and Ar2 can be selected from a substituted aryl group ([0015]) and that substituents can be selected from halogens, such as fluorine ([0056 – 0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phenyl groups with a fluorine atom and arrive at the claimed compound. Additionally, it further would have been obvious to substitute the phenyl groups with a fluorine atom because Lim teaches structurally similar compounds to that of Shim
PNG
media_image4.png
116
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0044]). Lim teaches that the HOMO level can be deepened by the strong electron-withdrawing effect of the substitution of a bonded substituent of an amine group with a fluoro group ([0033]). Lim teaches that this particular substitution increases the hole mobility and improves the service life of an organic light emitting device containing the compound ([0033]).When modified with a fluorine substituent, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein L is an unsubstituted divalent hydrocarbon ring group, namely a divalent C12 hydrocarbon ring group represented by
PNG
media_image5.png
62
144
media_image5.png
Greyscale
as required by claims 5 and 6; L1 and L2 are a direct bond; Ar1 and Ar2 are an unsubstituted aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 7; L10 and L11 are an unsubstituted arylene group; X1 and X2 are a curable group, namely one represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
58
84
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 2; n1 to n4 are 0 so that the corresponding L groups do not exist; m1 to m4 are all 1. The compound is represented by Chemical Formula 2 in claim 3 and Chemical Formula 3 in claim 4. The compound is the same as compound
PNG
media_image7.png
98
198
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 9.)
Shin includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Shin being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of low driving voltage, high light emission efficiency and long lifetime properties in OLEDs ([0028]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 10, Shin teaches:
A coating composition comprising the compound ([0142]: “One embodiment of the present specification provides a coating composition comprising the compound of Chemical Formula 1 described above.”)
As per claims 11 and 12, Shin teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises a hole transport layer or a hole injection layer ([0173]: “FIG. 1 illustrates a structure of the organic light emitting device in which an anode (201), a hole injection layer (301), a hole transfer layer (401), a light emitting layer (501), an electron transfer layer (601) and a cathode (701) are consecutively laminated on a substrate (101).”)
Wherein the hole transport layer or hole injection layer comprises the composition ([0161]: “In one embodiment of the present specification, the organic material layer comprising the cured material of the coating composition is a hole transfer layer or a hole injection layer.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights