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 Arguments/Amendment
The amendment of 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 6–9 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 20, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1–5 and 10–20 are pending.
Claim 12 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as being improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter for the claim form which it depends.
The examiner indicated that some compounds recited in Claim 12 were missing a bond in the spirobifluorene core. Applicant has made revisions to more clearly show the spirobifluorene core. The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and the rejection has been withdrawn since corrections have been made. There appears to still be some compounds which have missing bonds, as discussed below in the Claim Objections section.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 18 of the reply filed 04/14/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated by Cheng et al. (CN 110003020 A, hereinafter "Cheng") set forth in the Office Action of 01/28/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to specify where the amines are attached.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as allegedly being anticipated by Parham et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0126179 A1, hereinafter "Parham") set forth in the Office Action of 01/28/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to specify where the amines are attached.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-16, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Parham set forth in the Office Action of 01/28/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to specify where the amines are attached.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 15-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Parham and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0185942 A1, hereafter “Kim2”) set forth in the Office Action of 01/28/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to specify where the amines are attached.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 13-16, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Qian (WO 2020/083327 A1, hereinafter "Qian") set forth in the Office Action of 01/28/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to specify where the amines are attached.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 12-13, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0260901 A1, hereinafter "Kim") set forth in the Office Action of 01/28/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to specify where the amines are attached. However, a new round of rejections, necessitated by amendment, have been applied below using Kim as the primary reference.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 recites compounds which are missing bonds. Some examples are compounds 51, 55, 62, 66 (shown below). Note that this is not an exhaustive list. Appropriate corrections are required.
PNG
media_image1.png
171
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
179
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
149
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
137
198
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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, 10-–14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1, provided in Applicants' IDS filed on 12/01/2022, hereafter "Kim") in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0198763 A1, hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claims 1–5, 10-–11, 13–14, 20, Kim teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 1 [Table 1] including an anode, a hole injection layer comprising Compound 1, a hole transport layer comprising Compound 1, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0304] – [0306]. Compound 1 reads on Applicant’s Formula 2-2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
195
214
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
285
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar1–Ar4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl),
R1 and R4 are each a hydrogen, while R2 and R3 are each -N(Q1)(Q2) wherein Q1 and Q2 are each a phenyl group.
a and d are 3, while b and c are 1.
However, Applicants’ Formula 1 requires that a case in which each of R1 and R4 is hydrogen or deuterium is excluded. Therefore, Compound 1 does not read on Applicants’ Formula 1 of claim 1 and 20.
Lee teaches the organic light emitting device of Example 2-5 comprising Compound 5 [0180] in the hole transfer layer (shown below). Additionally, Lee teaches the organic light emitting device of Comparative Example 2-1 comprising HT2 [0232] in the hole transfer layer (shown below). Table 2 indicates that the voltage is lower, the efficiency is higher, and the lifetime is higher for the device comprising Compound 5 in comparison to the device comprising HT2 [0234]. The only difference between the structures of Compound 5 and Compound HT2 is a phenyl group substituent adjacent to the amine group substituent on the spirobifluorene core. Therefore, Lee teaches the addition of a phenyl group substituent adjacent to an amine group substituent on spirobifluorene core molecule used in the hole transfer layer leads to a decrease in voltage, an increase in efficiency, and an increase in lifetime.
PNG
media_image7.png
297
293
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
270
267
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Kim teaches the hole transport region may include a first compound represented by one of Formulae 1A, 1B, and 1C [0037]. Compound 1 is represented by Formula 1A (shown below) wherein R1 to R4 may be a C6 aryl group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image9.png
290
685
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 modify Compound 1, as taught by Kim, by adding a C6 aryl group (phenyl) for R1 to R4 adjacent to each amine, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to decrease the voltage, increase the efficiency, and increase the lifetime of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Lee.
Per Claim 1 and 20, an organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising Compound 1, as modified above hereafter “Modified Compound 1”, in the hole transport layer reads on Applicant’s Formula 2-2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
195
214
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
347
386
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar1–Ar4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl),
R1–R4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl),
a, b, c are 3, d is 1.
Per Claims 2 and 3, the organic light emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes an anode, a hole injection layer comprising Compound 1, a hole transport layer comprising Compound 1, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [0304] – [0306]. Therefore, the electron transport region comprises the combination of an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer, while the hole transport region comprises the combination of a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer.
Per Claim 4, the organic light emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since R1 and -NAr1Ar2 are adjacent to each other in Modified Compound 1.
Per Claim 5, the organic light emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since R4 and -NAr3Ar4 are adjacent to each other in Modified Compound 1.
Per Claim 10, the organic light emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Ar1 to Ar4 are each represented by Applicant’s Formula 6-1 (shown below) in Modified Compound 1, wherein R11 is hydrogen and a11 is 5.
PNG
media_image11.png
165
155
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
347
386
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 11, the organic light emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since R1 to R4 are each represented by Applicant’s Formula 7-1 (shown below) in Modified Compound 1, wherein R21 is hydrogen and a21 is 5.
PNG
media_image12.png
162
153
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
347
386
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 13, the organic light emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the hole transport layer comprises Modified Compound 1.
Per Claim 14, the organic light emitting device, as described above, emits blue light as evidenced by Seo et al. (US 2004/0137270 A1, hereafter “Seo”). The emission layer of the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprises Compound H1-1a and Compound FD9 (shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
225
343
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
261
367
media_image14.png
Greyscale
However, Kim appears silent with respect to the property of the emission layer emitting blue light.
Seo recites an emitting layer having a plurality of materials and being a blue emitting material using a chemical formula 1 as a dopant [0017]. Seo’s chemical formula 1 is exemplified by Compound S-25, which is nearly identical to Compound FD9. Seo further recites a material forming the emitting layer together with the material of the chemical formula 1 is formed as a structure of a following chemical formula 2 [0020]. Seo’s chemical formula 2 is exemplified by Compound H-17, which is nearly identical to Compound H1-1a.
PNG
media_image15.png
224
423
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
419
340
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Since Seo teaches a light emitting layer that emits blue light comprised of Compound S-25 and Compound H-17, nearly identical structures as Compound FD9 and Compound H1-1a disclosed by Kim, the property of blue emission is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
In the alternative, Kim teaches the organic light emitting device may have a stacked structure comprising a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer [0174].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to produce an organic light emitting device comprising Modified Compound 1 and a blue emission layer. The motivation for doing so would have been to make an organic light emitting device comprising a blue emission layer with the high efficiency, long lifespan benefits, as taught by Kim [0159].
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Compound 1 does not read on the compounds listed in claim 12.
Modified Compound 1 is represented by Kim Formula 1A (shown below) wherein n1 to n4 are each 1. Kim allows for each n to be 0 to 4 [0019]. For example, Kim teaches Compound 5 [pg. 50] wherein n1 is 1, while n2 to n3 are each 0 (shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
290
685
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
216
350
media_image17.png
Greyscale
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 further modify Modified Compound 1 wherein n1 and n3 are each 1 while n2 and n4 are each 0, because it would have been choosing between 0 to 4 for each n, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a hole conductive material in the hole transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1A and devices comprising compounds of Formula 1A having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Kim further teaches Compound 27 [pg. 54] wherein Ar1 is a C12 aryl group (naphthyl). Additionally, Kim teaches Ar1 may be represented by Formula 6-1 to 6-170, such as Formula 6-128 (shown below) [0090]. Kim teaches a compound represented by Formula 1A may have excellent hole transport ability leading to controlled charge balance, electrical stability, and improved lifetime [0159].
PNG
media_image18.png
423
425
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
126
157
media_image19.png
Greyscale
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 further modify Modified Compound 1 wherein Ar1 is represented by Formula 6-128, because it would have been choosing between Formula 6-1 to Formula 6-170 [0090], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a hole conductive material in the hole transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1A and devices comprising compounds of Formula 1A having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 12, the organic light emitting device, as described above, comprising the further modified version of Modified Compound 1, hereafter “Further Modified Compound 1”, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it is identical to Applicant’s Compound 61 (shown below).
PNG
media_image20.png
167
258
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
334
370
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Claims 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0260901 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0198763 A1) as applied to claims 1–5, 10-–14, 20 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0185942 A1, hereafter “Kim2”).
Regarding Claims 15-–19, Kim in view of Lee teaches the organic light emitting device as described above comprising Modified Compound 1.
However, Kim in view of Lee does not teach an electronic apparatus including a light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Kim2 teaches an OLED display device with a touch screen including a display panel, an encapsulation film, and a touch screen. The display panel is an OLED panel and includes a switching thin-film transistor, a driving thin-film transistor, and an organic light emitting diode in each pixel region. The organic light emitting diode in the pixel region sequentially emit red, green, and blue light [0029]. Kim2 further teaches a first electrode is formed on the inter insulating layer in each pixel region, and the first electrode contacts the drain electrode of the driving thin-film transistor. The first electrode has a double-layered structure including a first layer as a reflector and a second layer as an anode (of the OLED display device) [0048] – [0051].
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 use the organic light emitting device as discussed above, taught by Kim in view of Lee, in the OLED display device with a touch screen, taught by Kim2, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kim in view of Lee and Kim2 according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED display device with the high efficiency, long lifespan benefits, as taught by Kim [0159]. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 17 and 18, the resulting OLED display device with a touch screen, from the combination of Kim in view of Lee and Kim2 as described above, reads on Applicant’s since it is an electronic apparatus comprising a light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the first electrode (anode) of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Per Claim 19, the resulting OLED display device with a touch screen, from the combination of Kim in view of Lee and Kim2 as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitations since it includes a touch screen. Additionally, Kim2 teaches the OLED display device may further include a polarizing film at an outer surface of the touch screen to prevent reflection due to external light [0030].
Per Claims 15 and 16, the resulting OLED display device with a touch screen, from the combination of Kim in view of Lee and Kim2 as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitations since it includes an encapsulation film. Kim2 teaches the encapsulation film is attached onto the organic light-emitting diode to protect the organic light-emitting diode and to prevent permeation of moisture [0064]. Furthermore, Kim2 teaches the encapsulation film is attached to the second electrode (cathode) [0087].
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights