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/Amendments
The amendment of 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1–14 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 33 of the reply filed 04/01/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 4–9, 11, 13 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schaefer et al. (US 2012/0095222 A1, hereafter “Schaefer”) set forth in the Office Action of 01/13/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite “wherein, if X is O, R1 and R2 are each independently a hydrogen atom, a deuterium atom, a halogen atom, or a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 to 20 carbon atoms”, rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 33 of the reply filed 04/01/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1–3, 10–12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer set forth in the Office Action of 01/13/2026 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite “wherein, if X is O, R1 and R₂ are each independently a hydrogen atom, a deuterium atom, a halogen atom, or a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 to 20 carbon atoms”, rendering the rejections moot.
Therefore, a new grounds of rejections has been necessitated by amendment.
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, 4, 6–9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US 2012/0095222 A1, provided within Applicants’ IDS filed on 11/29/2022, hereafter “Schaefer”) in view of Wendeborn et al. (US 2010/0039024 A1, hereafter “Wendeborn”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Schaefer teaches Application Example 3 including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, a blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the hole transport layer comprises Compound A-2 [0160] – [0163].
However, A-2 does not read on Applicant’s Formula 5 of claim 1.
Schaefer teaches Compounds A-1 to A-9 may be used as hole transport materials [0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute A-8 for A-2 as the hole transport material in the hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Example 3. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a device with a good efficiency, good operative lifetime, good manufacturability, good spectral characteristics, high stability to thermal stress, and/or low operating voltage benefits, as taught by Schaefer [0012]. Compound A-8 nearly reads on Applicant’s Formula 5 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
311
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
266
261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is O,
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring (phenyl),
R2 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group of 12 carbon atoms for forming a ring (carbazole),
R5 is a hydrogen atom,
n is 1,
q is 3,
L is a direct linkage,
p is not present,
R3 and R4 are each an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring which are combined to form a ring (carbazole).
However, claim 1 does not allow R2 to be an unsubstituted heteroaryl group of 12 carbon atoms for forming a ring (carbazole) when X is O.
Wendeborn teaches Formula 1 wherein A may be represented by Moiety 1 and X is O, S, or N-R17 [0023]. The compounds taught by Wendeborn wherein X is O while Z1 and Z2 are -–NA1A1’ and –NA2A2’ [0017] read on Formula (I) of Schaefer (shown below). Therefore, Wendeborn teaches O and S are obvious variants of each other in this structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
266
233
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
244
159
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
242
284
media_image5.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the compounds taught by Schaefer may be modified wherein the O is replaced with S since they are obvious variants of each other in view of Wendeborn. Specifically, it would be obvious to modify Compound A-8 by substituting O for S. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds comprising S instead of O and devices comprising those compounds having the good operative lifetimes, good manufacturability, good spectral characteristics, high stability to thermal stress, and/or low operating voltage benefits taught by Schaefer [0012] in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success.
Per Claim 1 and 11, the electroluminescent device, hereafter “Device 1”, as described above, including an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, a blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the hole transport layer comprises the modified version of Compound A-8 wherein S is substituted for O, hereafter “Modified A-8”, reads on Applicant’s limitation since A-8 reads on Applicant’s Formula 5 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
311
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
402
445
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is S,
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring (phenyl),
R2 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group of 12 carbon atoms for forming a ring (carbazole),
R5 is a hydrogen atom,
n is 1,
q is 3,
L is a direct linkage,
p is not present,
R3 and R4 are each an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring which are combined to form a ring (carbazole).
Per Claim 4, Device 1 comprising Modified A-8, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation since Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring (phenyl).
Per Claim 6, Device 1 comprising Modified A-8, as described above, reads on Formula 7 (shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
343
300
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
402
445
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 7, Device 1 comprising Modified A-8, as described above, reads on Formula 9 (shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
353
296
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
402
445
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 8, Device 1 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes an anode, a hole injection layer, and a hole transport layer which comprises Modified A-8.
Regarding Claim 9, Device 1 does not comprise an electron blocking layer on the hole transport layer.
Schaefer teaches a preferred embodiment comprises a blocking layer for electrons between the hole-transport layer and the light-emitting layer [0122].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an electron blocking layer to Device 1. One would been motivated to do so to produce a preferred embodiment of an electroluminescent device taught by Schaefer having the good operative lifetimes, good manufacturability, good spectral characteristics, high stability to thermal stress, and/or low operating voltage benefits taught by Schaefer [0012].
The modified version of Device 1, as described above, comprising an electron blocking layer and including Modified A-8 within the hole transport layer reads on Applicants’ limitation.
Claims 1–8, 10–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2013/009032 A2, hereafter “Kim”). An English translation has been provided in this office action.
Regarding Claims 1-–8, 10–14, Kim teaches compounds of Formula 1 [11], exemplified by DS59 [57] (shown below). Kim further teaches R1 to R6 may be represented by substituents S1 to S94 [80] – [96]. Kim teaches compared to triphenylenes without heteroatoms, compounds of Formula 1 have heteroatoms introduced which results in superior electron or hole transport capacity [29]. Additionally, compounds of Formula 1 offer superior thermal stability [30].
However, Kim does not exemplify a compound like DS59 wherein R1, R2, are represented by substituent S, while R-6 is represented by substituent S84.
PNG
media_image9.png
327
347
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
295
202
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
317
263
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
188
147
media_image12.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 use S1 for R1–R2, and S84 for R6, because it would have been choosing between S1 to S94 for R1 to R6, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the hole transport material in the hole transport layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Kim 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 teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer, a hole barrier layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode [21] – [25]. Additionally, Kim teaches compounds represented by Formula 1 may be used in the hole injection layer, hole transport layer, or light-emitting layer [16].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified version of DS59, as described above, in the hole transport layer of the organic electroluminescent device taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce an organic light-emitting device that exhibits low driving voltage, high current efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Kim [18].
Per Claim 1 and 11, the organic electroluminescent device including a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emissive layer, a hole barrier layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, as described above (hereafter “Device 2”) wherein the hole transport layer comprises the modified version of DS59 (hereafter “Modified DS59”) reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified DS59 reads on Applicant’s Formula 6 (shown below),
PNG
media_image13.png
261
305
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
278
354
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is O,
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring (phenyl),
R1 and R6 are each a hydrogen atom,
m is 4,
r is 3,
L is an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring (phenylene),
p is 1,
R3 and R4 are each an unsubstituted aryl of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring (phenyl).
Per Claim 2, 3, and 12, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since L is an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring (an unsubstituted phenylene group) in Modified DS59.
Per Claim 4, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 carbon atoms for forming a ring (phenyl) in Modified DS59.
Per Claim 5 and 13, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since X is O in Modified DS59.
Per Claim 6, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since DS859 is represented by Applicant’s Formula 6. Modified DS59 reads on Applicant’s further limitation of an optional limitation.
Per Claim 7, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified DS59 reads on Applicant’s Formula 9 (shown below).
PNG
media_image15.png
295
291
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
278
354
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 8, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises a hole injection layer on the anode, a hole transport layer on the hole injection layer, wherein the hole transport layer comprises Modified DS59.
Per Claim 10 and 14, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified DS59 is identical to Applicant’s compound C1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image16.png
236
308
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
278
354
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2013/009032 A2) as applied to claims 1-–8 and 10–14 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2006/0024526 A1, hereafter “Thompson”).
Regarding Claim 9, Device 2 does not read on Applicant’s limitation since it does not comprise an electron blocking layer on the hole transport layer.
Thompson teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emissive layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a protective layer, and a cathode [0035]. Thompson teaches an electron blocking layer functions to confine electrons to specific regions of the light emitting device. Thompson further teaches device efficiency can be increased if electrons are prevented from migrating out of the emissive layer [0044].
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 add an electron blocking layer to Device 2, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Thompson and Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results of a organic light emitting device with the efficiency benefits, as taught by Thompson. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 9, the modified version of Device 2 comprising an electron blocking layer on the hole transport layer wherein the hole transport layer includes Modified DS59 reads on Applicant’s limitation.
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