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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2021-0183127, filed on 12/20/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–5, 9–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (CN 112552190 A, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 12/22/2025, hereafter Oh). An English translation is provided within this office action.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Oh teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 8 which comprises an anode, a cathode, an interlayer comprising an emission layer, and Compound 8 [0156] – [0162]. Compound 8 reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
305
226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R13 is represented by Formula 2,
R3 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl),
R1–R2, R4–R12, R14–R18 are each hydrogen,
L1, L3 are each a single bond,
L2 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 is a C13 carbocyclic group (fluorene) substituted with two C1 alkyl groups (methyl),
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the organic light-emitting device of Example 8 comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer as the hole transport region. Furthermore, Example 8 comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer as the electron transport region [0156] – [0162].
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the organic light-emitting device of Example 8 comprises Compound 8 in the hole transport layer [0156] – [0162].
Regarding Claim 5, the organic light-emitting device of Example 8 emits blue light [0156] – [0162]. Additionally, the dopant used in Example 8 (Compound BD) will have a maximum emission wavelength of about 450 nm as evidenced by Ogita et al. (US 2011/0248246 A1).
Compound BD, taught by Oh, and Blue Dopant 1, taught by Ogita, are nearly identical and therefore will inherently have the same maximum emission wavelength. The maximum emission wavelength of Blue Dopant 1 is about 450 nm as shown by Figure 10B below. Therefore, Compound BD will have the same maximum emission wavelength absent of evidence otherwise.
PNG
media_image4.png
285
250
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
386
176
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
302
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, for Compound 8, L1 and L3 are each a single bond, while L2 is a benzene group represented by Applicants’ Formula 4-3 (shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
155
146
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
305
226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, a1-–a3 are each 1 for Compound 8.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, for Compound 8, Ar1 is a fluorenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-14, while Ar2 is a phenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below). Y31 is C(Z33)(Z34), wherein Z33 and Z34 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl). Z31 and Z32 are each hydrogen, e5 is 5, e4 is 4, and e3 is 3.
PNG
media_image8.png
135
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
159
206
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
305
226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, b1 and b2 are each 1 for Compound 8.
Regarding Claim 16, for Compound 8, *-(L1)a1-(Ar1)b1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-8, while *-(L2)a2-(Ar2)b2 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-5 (shown below). Y61 is C(R61)(R62) wherein R61–R62 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl).
PNG
media_image10.png
157
252
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
256
131
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
305
226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17–19, R13 is represented by Formula 2, while R3 is a C4 alkyl group (tert-butyl) for Compound 8. R1–R2, R4–R12, R14–R18 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 20, Compound 8 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 1A-5 (shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
203
143
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
305
226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-–4, 9–-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 107936955 A, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 12/22/2025, hereafter Li). An English translation is provided within this office action.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Li teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 15 comprising an anode, a cathode, an interlayer comprising an emission layer, and Compound C-6 [0146] – [0158]. Compound C-6 reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
209
304
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R16 is represented by Formula 2,
R3 is an unsubstituted C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine),
R1–R2, R4–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen,
L1–L3 are each a single bond,
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
Ar2 is a C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the organic light-emitting device of Example 15 comprises a hole transport layer as the hole transport region. Furthermore, Example 15 comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer as the electron transport region [0146] – [0158].
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the organic light-emitting device of Example 15 comprises Compound C-6 in the hole transport layer [0146] – [0158].
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, L1–L3 are each a single bond for Compound C-6.
Regarding Claim 12, a1-–a3 are each 1 for Compound C-6.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, for Compound C-6, Ar2 is a carbazolyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-14, while Ar1 is a phenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below). Y31 is N(Z35), wherein Z35 is an unsubstituted C6 Carbocyclic group (phenyl). Z31 and Z32 are each hydrogen, e5 is 5, e4 is 4, and e3 is 3.
PNG
media_image9.png
159
206
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
135
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
209
304
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, b1 and b2 are each 1 for Compound C-6.
Regarding Claim 16, for Compound C-6, *-(L1)a1-(Ar1)b1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-1, while *-(L2)a2-(Ar2)b2 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-8 (shown below). Y61 is N(R61) wherein R61 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image14.png
193
122
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
157
252
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
209
304
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17–19, R16 is represented by Formula 2, while R3 is an unsubstituted C5 heterocyclic group (pyridine) for Compound C-6. R1–R2, R4–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 20, Compound C-6 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 1A-9 (shown below).
PNG
media_image15.png
205
159
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
209
304
media_image13.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 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (CN 112552190 A) in further view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0308212 A1, hereafter Jin).
Regarding Claims 6-–8, Oh teaches the organic light-emitting device of Example 8, as described above, comprising Compound 8. Oh further teaches using the organic compounds taught by Oh will enable organic light-emitting diodes with improved drive voltage, luminous efficiency, brightness, and extended lifetime [pg. 1, Invention Content].
However, Oh does not teach an electronic apparatus including a light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor. They also do not teach an electronic apparatus comprising a color filter, a polarizing film, or a touch screen.
Jin teaches a display device comprising an organic light-emitting device wherein the anode is electrically connected to the drain electrode of a thin-film transistor [0061]. Jin further teaches the display device is integrated with a touch screen in an exemplary embodiment [0016]. Additionally, Jin teaches the use of a polarizing film disposed on the cover substrate to prevent reflection of external light [0048].
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 taught by Oh in the display device taught by Jin, based on the teaching of Oh and Jin. One would be motivated to use the organic light-emitting device taught by Oh in the display device since the light-emitting device has an improved drive voltage, luminous efficiency, brightness, and extended lifetime, as taught by Oh.
Per Claim 6, the display device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since it is an electronic apparatus comprising an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor.
Per Claim 7, the display device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since it comprises an organic light-emitting device wherein the anode is electrically connected to the drain electrode of a thin-film transistor [0061].
Per Claim 8, the display device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since it comprises a polarizing film [0048] and a touch screen [0016].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9–20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 17/343,650 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of ‘650 recites a species which reads on the instant applications claims 9–20.
Regarding Claim 9, ‘650 recites Compound 63 which reads on the instant application’s Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
257
298
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R13 is represented by Formula 2,
R3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
R1–R2, R4–R12, R14–R18 are each hydrogen,
L1–L3 are each a single bond,
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
Ar2 is a C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, L1–L3 are each a single bond for Compound 63.
Regarding Claim 12, a1-–a3 are each 1 for Compound 63.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, for Compound 63, Ar2 is a carbazolyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-14, while Ar1 is a phenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below). Y31 is N(Z35), wherein Z35 is an unsubstituted C6 Carbocyclic group (phenyl). Z31 and Z32 are each hydrogen, e5 is 5, e4 is 4, and e3 is 3.
PNG
media_image9.png
159
206
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
135
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
257
298
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, b1 and b2 are each 1 for Compound 63.
Regarding Claim 16, for Compound 63, *-(L1)a1-(Ar1)b1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-1, while *-(L2)a2-(Ar2)b2 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-8 (shown below). Y61 is N(R61) wherein R61 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image14.png
193
122
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
157
252
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
257
298
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17–19, R13 is represented by Formula 2, while R3 is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) for Compound 63. R1–R2, R4–R12, R14–R18 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 20, Compound 63 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 1A-5 (shown below).
PNG
media_image12.png
203
143
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
257
298
media_image16.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 9–20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 17/362,764 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of ‘764 recites a species which reads on the instant applications claims 9–20.
Regarding Claim 9, ‘764 recites Compound 1 which reads on the instant application’s Formula 1 and Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
470
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
308
283
media_image17.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R16 is represented by Formula 2,
R7–R10 are each deuterium,
R1–R6, R11–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen,
L1–L3 are each a single bond,
a1–a3 are each 1,
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
Ar2 is a C12 heterocyclic group (carbazole) substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
b1–b2 are each 1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, L1–L3 are each a single bond for Compound 1.
Regarding Claim 12, a1-–a3 are each 1 for Compound 1.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, for Compound 1, Ar2 is a carbazolyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-14, while Ar1 is a phenyl group represented by Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below). Y31 is N(Z35), wherein Z35 is an unsubstituted C6 Carbocyclic group (phenyl). Z31 and Z32 are each hydrogen, e5 is 5, e4 is 4, and e3 is 3.
PNG
media_image9.png
159
206
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
135
115
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
308
283
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, b1 and b2 are each 1 for Compound 1.
Regarding Claim 16, for Compound 1, *-(L1)a1-(Ar1)b1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-1, while *-(L2)a2-(Ar2)b2 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 7-8 (shown below). Y61 is N(R61) wherein R61 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
PNG
media_image14.png
193
122
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
157
252
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
308
283
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 17–19, R16 is represented by Formula 2, R7–R10 are each deuterium for Compound 1. R1–R6, R11–R15, R17–R18 are each hydrogen.
Regarding Claim 20, Compound 1 is represented by Applicants’ Formula 1A-11 (shown below).
PNG
media_image18.png
227
146
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
308
283
media_image17.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (CN 111454161 A) teaches compounds that read on Applicants’ independent claim 1, such as Compound 4 (shown below) [0252].
PNG
media_image19.png
254
181
media_image19.png
Greyscale
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