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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6, 10-12, 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, 4-6, 10, 14, 18, 19 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 biphenyl and Ar6 is a phenyl substituted carbazole (Hong [0032] [0034] [0033] [0036] [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 phenyl substituted carbazole. 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 1e, L5 is a phenylene, X is NRa 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 unsubstituted phenylene.
For Claim 6: Reads on 1a.
For Claim 10: Reads on hydrogen.
For Claim 14: Reads on 1e and hydrogen.
For Claim 18: Reads on a material for a device.
For Claim 19: Reads on a hole transport material.
For Claim 30: Reads on X is NRa.
In reference to claim 3, Hong teaches the compound as described above for claim 1. Hong further teaches that the linking groups L1 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 L1. 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 claim 11, 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 carbazole 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 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.
For Claim 11: Reads on a compound of formula (1) wherein L is an unsubstituted phenylene, bonded to position 2, Ar1 is a group of formula 1b wherein L2 is an unsubstituted biphenylene, Ar2 is a group of formula 1e, L5 is a single bond, X is NRa and each R is hydrogen.
In reference to claims 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 carbazole 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 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.
For Claim 12: Reads on a compound of formula (1) wherein L is an unsubstituted phenylene, bonded to position 2, Ar1 is a group of formula 1c wherein L3 is a single bond, Ar2 is a group of formula 1e, L5 is a single bond, X is NRa and each R is hydrogen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues initially that the prior art of reference (Hong) ‘never makes known a compound having all the structural features now recited in claim 1’. However, an explicit example is not required for a finding of obviousness. As pointed to herein above, Hong clearly teaches the claimed materials as members of the genus taught therein. Applicant has claimed a massive subset of this genus that no longer includes any of the materials specifically exemplified in the prior art of record. However, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972).
Applicant further argues that the instantly claimed materials give rise to unexpected results as demonstrated in examples that are in the instant specification and supported by additional examples in a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 submitted with the instant amendment. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in external quantum efficiency %, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, it is not clear that the result is one of practical significance nor are necessarily unexpected. Applicant’s data, taken together, demonstrates that materials of the genus of Hong do not all have the same efficiency when used in a device. This is not unexpected in light of the prior art. Hong also shows different efficiency (measured as current efficiency instead of % EQE) for different claimed materials in the examples therein. The fact that a single device structure differs in efficiency when a material is modified is not unexpected. Indeed, there is no clear evidence in the original disclosure as filed that this was known. Applicant’s disclosure and originally filed claims apparently included the compound 1-2 of Hong as part of the claimed invention and the data presented did not identify that the inclusion of phenyl substituents on the fluorenyl group was an improvement over methyl groups. The Office has not identified in the specification where this preference was taught. Indeed, many of the examples listed in [0159] include a methyl group at the positions now required to be aryl groups.
Third, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, Applicant’s rationale is that the selection of a specific substituent (phenyl instead of methyl) at a single position gives rise to unexpected improvements in device efficiency. However, the instantly claimed materials can have an essentially infinite number of other possible substitutions at nearly every other position in the material (i.e. long Markush groups wherein most members include the language “substituted or unsubstituted” with no limitation on the structures of the substituents). If a single substituent change would result in an unexpected improvement, it is not reasonable to assume, without evidence, that all other permutations of the near infinite genus of compounds claimed would share in such improvements. Applicant has provided evidence for only 3 of the claimed materials however no claims are drawn to these three materials specifically. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming thousands of more compounds and even more devices. As Applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by Hong, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
Conclusion
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