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
The applicant's amendment of 07/28/2026 is entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 13, 14, and 18 are amended and claims 8-9 cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-7 and 10-18 are pending.
The objections to claims 1, 2, 4-5, 10-11, 13, 15, and 18 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The objection are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 8-9 as set forth in the previous Office action is moot because claims 8-9 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al. US-20230008185-A1, the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. US-20230008185-A1, the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. US-20230008185-A1 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cho et al. US-20150200373-A1 and the rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. US-20230008185-A1 as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Zhao et al. CN-113024566-A as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejections are withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made over newly cited Ma et al. CN-114075202-A and Chun et al. US-20190006602-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 10-13 of the reply dated 07/28/2026 with respect to the rejections of record have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 10-13 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein the P-type material comprises a compound with a structural formula shown in Formula 3 wherein R6 and R7 are each independently selected from the structural formulas
PNG
media_image1.png
104
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below over newly cited Ma et al. CN-114075202-A and Chun et al. US-20190006602-A1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, it is suggested that "and" before Y2 be deleted and "and" be added before the final "wherein" on the second to last line of the claim; and
in claim 15, it is suggested that "the compound with a structural formula shown in Formula 4 is a compound with a structural formula as follows:" be changed to read "the compound with a structural formula shown in Formula 4 is a compound with one of a structural formula as follows:" for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 10-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. CN-114075202-A (hereinafter "Ma-202-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Ma-202-MT") in view of Chun et al. US-20190006602-A1 (hereinafter "Chun").
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, and 16-17, Ma-202 teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising at least one functional layer between an anode and a cathode, the functional layer comprising a nitrogen-containing compound (Ma-202-MT, page 15 of 29, lines 2-5) of a formula 1 (Ma-202-CN, page 2 of 29, lines 11-12), wherein the at least one functional layer comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a hole-assisted layer, an organic electroluminescent layer, a hole blocking layer an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer (Ma-202-MT, page 15 of 29, lines 12-14 and 15-16), and wherein the organic electroluminescent layer comprises the nitrogen-containing compound (Ma-202-MT, page 15 of 29, lines 16-17). Ma-202 teaches the nitrogen-containing compound when used in the organic electroluminescent device results in improved light emitting efficiency and service life (Ma-202-MT, page 3 of 29, lines 22-26). Ma-202 teaches specific examples of the organic electroluminescent device including Example 1, a green organic electroluminescence device having the layer structure: anode / hole injection layer / hole transport layer / hole-assisted layer / green light emitting layer comprising compound A-1-1: GH-P : Ir(3mppy)3 at a film thickness ratio of 45%:45%:10% / electron transport layer / electron injection layer / cathode (Ma-202-MT, page 22 of 29, line 12 to page 23 of 29, line 7).
Ir(3mppy)3 is the dopant in the light emitting layer and is a green phosphorescent material.
Compound A-1-1 has a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
213
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Ma-202-CN, page 32) and is a compound of the claimed Formula 1 and the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
202
287
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 is nitrogen;
Y1 is hydrogen;
L1 is a single bond and L2 is a C6 aryl (a phenyl group);
R1 and R2 are each a C6 aryl (a phenyl group) and R3 is a group
PNG
media_image4.png
135
122
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
X2 is
PNG
media_image5.png
69
78
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;
R4 is not required to be present and R5 is hydrogen; and
Y2 is a C6 aryl (a phenyl group).
Compound A-1-1 is a compound of the claimed Formula 1 or 2 and therefore corresponds to the claimed N-type material and GH-P corresponds to the claimed P-type material.
Ma-202 does not specifically disclose a device as described above wherein the second host in the organic electroluminescent layer is a compound with a structural formula show in claimed Formula 3. In the device of Example 1 of Ma-202, the second host material in the organic electroluminescent layer is GH-P with structure
PNG
media_image6.png
243
185
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Ma-202-CN, page 65).
Chun teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer disposed between an anode and a cathode, in which the light emitting layer includes a host including a P-type host and an N-type host, and a phosphorescent dopant (¶ [0007]). Chun teaches the P-type host may be a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, among others (¶ [0024]), and teaches examples of the P-type host compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 in paragraph [0240] including compound 1-8
PNG
media_image7.png
364
225
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 17, which is equivalent to the GH-P in the device of Ma-202, and compound 1-12
PNG
media_image8.png
355
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 18). Thus, Chun teaches the compound
PNG
media_image7.png
364
225
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and the compound
PNG
media_image8.png
355
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
are equivalent for use as P-type host materials in dual host systems with a phosphorescent dopant in the luminescent layer of an organic electroluminescent device.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Chun, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second host GH-P in the device of Ma-202 with host compound
PNG
media_image8.png
355
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, because Chun teaches the compound
PNG
media_image7.png
364
225
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and the compound
PNG
media_image8.png
355
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
are equivalent for use as P-type host materials in dual host systems with a phosphorescent dopant in the luminescent layer of an organic electroluminescent device. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the alternative compound would be useful as the second host in the electroluminescent layer of the device of Ma-202 and result in a device with the beneficial properties of improved light emitting efficiency and service life taught by Ma-202. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified device of Ma-202 in view of Chun meets claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, and 16-17
Regarding claim 5, Ma-202 in view of Chun teaches the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ma-202 does not specifically exemplify device wherein the nitrogen-containing compound of formula 1 corresponds to one of the claimed compounds of claim 5. However, Ma-202 teaches examples of the nitrogen-containing compound of formula 1 include
PNG
media_image9.png
140
204
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Ma-202, page 39), which corresponds to a compound with the claimed structural formula
PNG
media_image10.png
283
327
media_image10.png
Greyscale
where X2 is
PNG
media_image5.png
69
78
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and Y2 is a C6 aryl (a phenyl group).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Ma-202, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the nitrogen-containing host compound in the device of Ma in view of Chun with compound A-10-1, because Ma teaches the nitrogen-containing compound may suitably be selected as such. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host in the emission layer of the device of Ma and possess the beneficial properties of improved light emitting efficiency and service life taught by Ma. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. CN-114075202-A (hereinafter "Ma-202-CN" and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Ma-202-MT") in view of Chun et al. US-20190006602-A1 (hereinafter "Chun") as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. CN-113024566-A, see English language family member US-20230008185-A1 referred to herein.
Regarding claim 12-15, Ma-202 in view of Chun teaches the device as discussed above with respect to claim 11.
Ma-202 in view of Chun does not specifically disclose a device as described above wherein the hole blocking layer comprises a compound with a structural formula shown in claimed Formula 4.
Zhao teaches a heterocyclic derivative of a Formula I having high electron mobility and great hole blocking performance, and teaches that an organic electroluminescent device prepared by using the heterocyclic derivative as the hole blocking layer shows low drive voltage and high luminous efficiency (¶ [0018]). Zhao teaches examples of the heterocyclic derivative of a Formula I in paragraph [0056] including compound 1
PNG
media_image11.png
310
443
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(page 13).
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 form the hole blocking layer comprising the heterocyclic derivative of Formula I of Zhao in the device of Ma-202 in view of Chun, based on the teaching of Zhao. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain low drive voltage and high luminous efficiency, as taught by Zhao.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 1 as the specific compound of Formula I of Zhao, because it would have been choosing from the list of exemplified compounds of Formula I of Zhao, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the hole blocking layer of the device of Ma-202 in view of Chun and possessing the benefits taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the heterocyclic derivative of Formula I of Zhao having the benefits taught by Zhao in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, exemplified by Ma et al. US-20230008185-A1, teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising at least one functional layer between an anode layer and a cathode layer, the functional layer including an organic electroluminescence layer (¶ [0112], and FIG. 1), wherein the organic electroluminescence layer contains a nitrogen-containing compound of a Formula 1 (¶ [0112] and ¶ [0008]), wherein at least one of A and B is selected from the Formula 2-1 or the Formula 2-2:
PNG
media_image12.png
548
432
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0008]). However, Ma does not teach wherein the nitrogen-containing compound is a compound with a structural formula of
PNG
media_image13.png
226
290
media_image13.png
Greyscale
as recited in claim 18, wherein the indole-containing core is attached in a different orientation. Further, the prior art does not provide a reason to modify the nitrogen-containing compound of Ma such that the indole-containing core is attached in a different orientation and is a compound with a structural formula of
PNG
media_image13.png
226
290
media_image13.png
Greyscale
with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20180134718-A1 recites Cmp 102 on page 26; CN 114075202 A recites compound A-1-1 on page 32; and Xu et al. CN-114456174-A, cited on the IDS of 09/28/2023, recites compounds 466, 467, and 468 on page 56.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights