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 .
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 1-12, 14, and 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (US 2013/0334517) (Hong).
In reference to claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, 18 and 19, Hong teaches a compound of chemical formula 2 as shown below as a material for a hole transport layer of an organic light emitting device (Abstract [0030] [0051])
PNG
media_image1.png
284
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the chemical formula 2, Ar4 is phenyl, L1 is phenylene, Ar5 is terphenyl and Ar6 is biphenyl (Hong [0032] [0034] [0033] [0027] [0028]).
Hong discloses the compound of chemical formula 2 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the chemical formula 2, Ar4 is phenyl, L1 is phenylene, Ar5 is terphenyl and Ar6 is biphenyl. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hong are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of chemical formula 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of chemical formula 2 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a compound of formula (1) wherein L is an unsubstituted phenylene, bonded to position 2, Ar1 is a group of formula 1a wherein L1 is an unsubstituted phenylene, Ar2 is a group of formula 1b, L2 is unsubstituted biphenylene and each R is hydrogen.
For Claim 2: Reads on bonding at position 2.
For Claim 4: Reads on L is unsubstituted phenylene.
For Claim 5: Reads on L1 is unsubstituted phenylene.
For Claim 6: Reads on 1a.
For Claim 7: Reads on formula 1a and 1b.
For Claim 10: Reads on hydrogen.
For Claim 18: Reads on a material for a device.
For Claim 19: Reads on a hole transport material.
In reference to claim 3, Hong teaches the compound as described above for claim 1. Hong further teaches that the linking groups L2 of the molecule can be a direct bond instead of an arylene group (Hong [0034] [0042]).
Hong discloses the compound that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including a direct bond at L2. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hong are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 17, Hong teaches the compound as described above for claim 1. Hong further teaches that the groups of the molecule can be optionally substituted by heavy hydrogen (i.e. deuterium) (Hong [0036]).
Hong discloses the compound that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including a heavy hydrogen substituent at any position. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hong are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claims 20-26, and 28-29, Hong teaches the compound as described above for claim 1. Hong further teaches device structures for these compounds such as those exemplified in [0143] wherein the device comprises an ITO anode, an hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer of NPB (85 nm thick), a second hole transport layer of the compound 1-1 (35 nm thick), a light emitting layer comprising a host and dopant (that can be fluorescent), a hole block layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer and a cathode (Hong [0072] [0143]-[0145]).
Given that Hong discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the compound is in a hole transport layer as claimed, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device structure, which is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 27, Hong teaches the device as described above for claim 20. While Hong does not expressly teach that the fluorescent material emits light with a main peak wavelength of 500 nm or less, the selection of a material for the emission of a specific color is within the ambit of the ordinarily skilled artisan.
While Hong does not explicitly disclose the emission wavelength as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the emission wavelength taught by Hong, including over the presently claimed range, in order to optimize device efficiency or color.
In reference to claims 8, 9, 11, and 12, Hong teaches a compound of chemical formula 2 as shown below as a material for a hole transport layer of an organic light emitting device (Abstract [0030] [0051])
PNG
media_image1.png
284
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the chemical formula 2, Ar4 is phenyl, L1 is phenylene, Ar5 is fluorenyl and Ar6 is naphthalene (Hong [0032] [0034] [0033] [0027] [0028]).
Hong discloses the compound of chemical formula 2 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the chemical formula 2, Ar4 is phenyl, L1 is phenylene, Ar5 is fluorenyl and Ar6 is naphthalene. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hong are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of chemical formula 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of chemical formula 2 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claims 11, 14, and 30, Hong teaches a compound of chemical formula 2 as shown below as a material for a hole transport layer of an organic light emitting device (Abstract [0030] [0051])
PNG
media_image1.png
284
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the chemical formula 2, Ar4 is phenyl, L1 is phenylene, Ar5 is fluorenyl and Ar6 is terphenyl (Hong [0032] [0034] [0033] [0027] [0028]).
Hong discloses the compound of chemical formula 2 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the chemical formula 2, Ar4 is phenyl, L1 is phenylene, Ar5 is fluorenyl and Ar6 is terphenyl. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hong are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of chemical formula 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of chemical formula 2 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are no longer anticipated by Hong. However, the claimed devices and materials are obvious in view of Hong as set forth as the difference between the instant claims and that of Hong are slight limits to optional substituents, each of which is taught by Hong.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights