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 03/27/2026, the claims were amended, and a high resolution copy of excerpts from the specification was submitted.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and Applicant’s submission, the objections to the specification is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-25 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 15 and 20-25 as being anticipated by Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0155491 A1), and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-5, 8-14, and 16-17 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud as applied above, are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-25 were originally filed.
Claims 1, 15, and 25 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-25 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument of unexpected results, Examiner disagrees in three parts.
First, it is noted that applicant has only provided data from one trial of each compound from a single device structure. There is not enough evidence to support Applicant’s assertion that that these same results would be observed over a statistical analysis of multiple trials and multiple device structures. Without a statement of standard deviation, it is unclear whether these data represent a statistically significant improvement over the comparison devices or whether these data fall within standard deviation.
Second, the data presented is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because independent claim 15 is drawn to a compound while the data is drawn to the compound in a specific device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that common endeavors in the field of organic electroluminescent devices, such as improved luminance, external quantum efficiency, device lifetime, color purity, and driving voltage, can be influenced by a multitude of factors such as device layer order, layer thickness, as well as layer composition. There is not enough evidence to support Applicant’s assertion that the claimed improvements are the result of the claimed compound only, and would be observed in any device of any structure.
Third, the data presented is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because data have not been presented for a sufficient breadth of compounds to reasonably represent the full scope of the independent claims. For example, while the comparison of Example Compound A1 and Comparative Compound R1 is effective in demonstrating the unexpected advantage of using a moiety of instant Formula 2 for both of instant Ar1 and Ar2, and the comparison of Example Compounds D2 and D41 with Comparative Compound R1 is effective in demonstrating the unexpected advantage of using a moiety of Formula 5 and a moiety of Formula 2 as Ar1 and Ar2 of instant Formula 1, the claims encompass a great deal of combinations and subcombinations of moieties for which data have not been represented. These include subcominations such as the combination of Formula 2 and Formula 4 when m2 is 1, and the combination of two moieties of Formula 5. There is not enough data to support the full scope of compounds of instant Formula 1.
For these reasons, it is unclear whether the presented data represent a statistically significant improvement, whether these same results would be realized in any device, and whether the full breadth of the claimed compounds would demonstrate these same advantageous properties.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that the amendments overcome Mujica-Fernaud, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claim 15, the claim has been amended to include the limitation that when Ar1 and Ar2 are each represented by Formula 4 and each X is oxygen, then at least one m2 of Ar1 and Ar2 is 0.
Page 3, lines 25-27, of the originally filed specification includes the limitation that, “--when both Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 4 above, any one selected from among two m2’s is 1, and the other is 0--”. Examiner notes that this limitation is repeated and demonstrated throughout the originally filed disclosure. There is no support in writing or in example compounds to support a compound wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 4, and both of m2 are 0.
Thus, the amendment to claim 15 introduces new matter.
Claims 16-25 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 15-25 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 independent claim 15, the claim contains the following contradictory limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this first limitation, when both of Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 4, one m2 is 1 and the other m2 is 0. However, in the second limitation, when Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 4, then at least one of m2 is 0.
Thus, it is unclear how many of m2 must be 0 when both of Ar1 and Ar2 are represented by Formula 4, and X is oxygen.
In continuing examination, this is being interpreted as when Ar1 and Ar2 are each represented by Formula 4 and each X is sulfur, then one m2 is 1 and the other is 0, and when Ar1 and Ar2 are each represented by Formula 4 and each X is oxygen, then at least one m2 is 0.
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 1-5, 8-17 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0155491 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mujica-Fernaud teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and at least one functional layer between the electrodes which comprises an amine compound of formula (1) (paragraph 0085), such as compound (160) (page 24), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
422
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 160 is derived from Mujica-Fernaud formula (1) (paragraph 0017) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Mujica-Fernaud also teaches that Ar1 or Ar2 may be represented by formula (73) (page 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
214
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
When the phenylene-linked carbazole group of compound 160 is replaced by the carbazole group of formula (73) which is directly bonded to the central amine, it forms a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein n is 0 and R is not present, Ar1 is represented by Formula 4, and Ar2 is represented by Formula 5. In Formula 4, m2 is 1, n5 is 0 and R5 is not present, X is oxygen and n6 is 0 so that R6 is not present. In Formula 5, m3 is 0 so that n7 and R7 are not present, R9 is a hydrogen atom, n8 is 0 and R8 is not present, and Ar3 is an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Mujica-Fernaud includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Mujica-Fernaud being a lack of the aforementioned single bond 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 substituent, such as formula (73), from the finite list of possible substituents for Ar1 and Ar2 and arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of compounds for use in organic electronic device, which result in electronic devices with high efficiency, low operating voltage, and long lifetime (paragraph 0133), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, 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 compound in the functional layer of a light emitting element in order to achieve an electronic device with high efficiency, low operating voltage, and long lifetime, as taught by Mujica-Fernaud.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and Mujica-Fernaud also teaches that the functional layer comprises at least a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an emission layer, and an electron transporting layer between the two electrodes (paragraph 0165), and the hole transport layer comprises the compound (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 use the compound in a hole transporting layer, as taught by Mujica-Fernaud.
With respect to claim 4, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, as discussed above.
Mujica-Fernaud also teaches that Ar1 is represented by formula (28) (paragraph 0055 and page 7), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
352
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This structure meets the requirements of instant formula 2-2 when n1 and n2 are 0 and R1a and R2 are not present.
Mujica-Fernaud includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Mujica-Fernaud being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 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 result of a compound for use in an electronic device which results in high efficiencies, low operating voltage, and long lifetime (paragraph 0133), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 5, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 4, and Formula 2-2 is represented by Formula 2-c, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 8, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and Formula 4 is represented by Formula 4-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 8, and Formula 4-2 is represented by Formula 4-b, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 10, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and Formula 5 above is represented by Formula 5-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 11, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 10, and Formula 5-2 is represented by Formula 5-b, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 12, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and R is not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 13, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 2, as discussed above.
Mujica-Fernaud also teaches an embodiment of the invention in Table 1 (page 76) wherein host compound H1 is used in the emission layer (EML). Compound H1 is pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image6.png
252
514
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula E-1 when d11 is 2 and the two R40 are joined to form a ring, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms.
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 a compound of Formula E-1, such as H1 above, as a host material in the emission layer, as demonstrated by Mujica-Fernaud.
With respect to claim 14, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and the amine compound is identical to instant D30.
With respect to claim 15, Mujica-Fernaud discloses compound (160) (page 24), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
422
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 160 is derived from Mujica-Fernaud formula (1) (paragraph 0017) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Mujica-Fernaud also teaches that Ar1 or Ar2 may be represented by formula (73) (page 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
214
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
When the phenylene-linked carbazole group of compound 160 is replaced by the carbazole group of formula (73) which is directly bonded to the central amine, it forms a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim when n is 0 and R is not present, Ar1 is represented by Formula 4, and Ar2 is represented by Formula 5. In Formula 4, m2 is 1, n5 is 0 and R5 is not present, X is oxygen and n6 is 0 so that R6 is not present. In Formula 5, m3 is 0 so that n7 and R7 are not present, R9 is a hydrogen atom, n8 is 0 and R8 is not present, and Ar3 is an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Mujica-Fernaud includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Mujica-Fernaud being a lack of the aforementioned single bond 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 substituent, such as formula (73), from the finite list of possible substituents for Ar1 and Ar2 and arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of compounds for use in organic electronic device, which result in electronic devices with high efficiency, low operating voltage, and long lifetime (paragraph 0133), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 16, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of claim 15, as discussed above.
Compound (160) is derived from Mujica-Fernaud formula (1) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
316
422
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Mujica-Fernaud also teaches that Ar1 is represented by formula (28) (paragraph 0055 and page 7), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
352
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This structure meets the requirements of instant formula 2-2 when n1 and n2 are 0 and R1a and R2 are not present.
Mujica-Fernaud includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Mujica-Fernaud being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 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 result of a compound for use in an electronic device which results in high efficiencies, low operating voltage, and long lifetime (paragraph 0133), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 17, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of claim 16, and Formula 2-2 is represented by Formula 2-c, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 20, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of claim 15, and Formula 4 is represented by instant Formula 4-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 21, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of claim 20, and Formula 4-2 is represented by Formula 4-b, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 22, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of claim 15, and Formula 5 is represented by Formula 5-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 23, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of claim 22, and Formula 5-3 is represented by Formula 5-b, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 24, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of claim 15, and R is not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 25, Mujica-Fernaud teaches the compound of claim 15, and the compound is identical to instant D30.
Claims 1-7, 12, 14-19, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0359223 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses an organic light emitting element (paragraph 0076), comprising a first electrode (a positive electrode, paragraph 0094), a second electrode (a negative electrode, paragraph 0095), and at least one functional layer (an electron blocking layer) comprises a compound of Formula 2 (paragraph 0089), such as the compound below (page 51).
PNG
media_image8.png
295
308
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Kim formula 2, which is pictured below (paragraph 0012).
PNG
media_image9.png
180
250
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that each of Ar2 through Ar4 may be selected from -L2-Z (paragraph 0014), wherein L2 is a direct bond or a phenylene group (paragraph 0015).
When the direct bond between the amine and the naphthyl group is replaced by a phenylene group, it forms a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when n is 0 and R is not present, Ar1 is represented by Formula 2, and Ar2 is represented by Formula 3. In Formula 2, n1 is 0 and R1 is not present, n2 is 0 and R2 is not present. In Formula 3, m1 is 1, and n3 is 0 so that R3 is not present, and n4 is 0 so that R4 is not present.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 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 result of a compound which results in an organic light emitting device with improved low driving voltage, high efficiency, and service life (paragraph 00170), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, 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 compound of Kim in the electron blocking layer of a device with the claimed structure in order to obtain an organic light emitting device with improved low driving voltage, high efficiency, and service life, as taught by Kim.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Kim teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and the device comprises at least one electron blocking layer comprising the compound, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Kim teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and Formula 2 is represented by Formula 2-2, and either of Formulae 2-c or 2-d, because Kim is not limiting with regard to the bonding pattern of -L2-Z.
With respect to claim 6, Kim teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and Formula 3 is represented by instant Formula 3-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Kim teaches the light emitting element of claim 6, and Formula 3-2 above is represented by instant Formula 3-e, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 12, Kim teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and R is not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, Kim teaches the light emitting element of claim 1, and the compound is identical to instant compound A65.
With respect to claim 15, Kim discloses the compound below (page 51).
PNG
media_image8.png
295
308
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Kim formula 2, which is pictured below (paragraph 0012).
PNG
media_image9.png
180
250
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches that each of Ar2 through Ar4 may be selected from -L2-Z (paragraph 0014), wherein L2 is a direct bond or a phenylene group (paragraph 0015).
When the direct bond between the amine and the naphthyl group is replaced by a phenylene group, it forms a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when n is 0 and R is not present, Ar1 is represented by Formula 2, and Ar2 is represented by Formula 3. In Formula 2, n1 is 0 and R1 is not present, n2 is 0 and R2 is not present. In Formula 3, m1 is 1, and n3 is 0 so that R3 is not present, and n4 is 0 so that R4 is not present.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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 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 result of a compound which results in an organic light emitting device with improved low driving voltage, high efficiency, and service life (paragraph 00170), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Kim teaches the compound of claim 15, and Formula 2 is represented by instant formula 2-2, and any of instant formulae 2-a through 2-d, as Kim is not limiting with respect to the bonding pattern of -L2-Z, as discussed above as discussed above.
With respect to claim 18, Kim teaches the compound of claim 15, and Formula 3 above is represented by Formula 3-2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 19, Kim teaches the compound of claim 18, and Formula 3-2 is represented by Formula 3-e, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 24, No teaches the compound of claim 15, and R is not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 25, No teaches the compound of claim 15, and one embodiment of the compound is identical to instant Compound A65.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights