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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on June 17, 2026.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 19 has been cancelled. Note that under 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c)(4)(i), “No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with that status of ‘cancelled’ or ‘not entered’.” Future submissions to the Office including cancelled claims, should only recite a status identifier of “Cancelled” for the claim without any corresponding text.
Claims 1 – 18 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed June 17, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 5, 8, 11 – 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang as set forth in the office action filed March 26, 2026. Claim 19 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 17, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and further in view of Park as set forth in the office action filed March 26, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 17, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and further in view of Jang as set forth in the office action filed March 26, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 17, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as set forth in the office action filed March 26, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 28 of copending Application No. 17/809819 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1-1 in claim 1 of the ‘819 application as evidenced by Formula 3-2 in claim 5 of the ‘819 application and at least compound 43 in claim 12 of the ‘819 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 38 of copending Application No. 18/314,486 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1-1 in claim 1 of the instant application overlap in scope with compounds of Formula 1 in claim 1 of the ‘486 application as evidenced by Formula 3-2 in claim 5 of the ‘486 application and at least compound 187 in claim 12 of the ‘486 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 11 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyun (KR20180112962A, using the provided English language translation).
As per claims 11 – 17, Hyun teaches
An amine-containing compound represented by Formula 1-12
PNG
media_image1.png
202
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Hyun teaches compound 217 on Page 21
PNG
media_image2.png
124
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein L1 to L3, Ar1 to Ar4 are all an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 12, represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image3.png
108
108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as required by claim 13, and represented by Formula 3-1
PNG
media_image4.png
110
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in claim 14; a1 to a3 is an integer of 1; R1 and R2 are both a C1 alkyl group, namely a methyl group as required by claim 17; b3 and b4 are an integer of 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 8, 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR20180112962A, using the provided English language translation) as applied to claims 11 – 17 above.
As per claims 1 – 5, Hyun the teachings of Hyun directed to compound 217 are incorporated herein. Hyun does not specifically teach the use of compound 217 in a device. Hyun teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and including an emission layer, the interlayer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron-blocking layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region includes a buffer layer, a hole-blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof ([0088 – 0089]: “An organic electroluminescent device according to one embodiment of the present invention may be formed with a structure comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer disposed between them… the organic layer of the organic electroluminescent device according to the present invention may be formed as a single layer structure, but may also be formed as a multilayer structure in which two or more organic layers are stacked. For example, it may have a structure including a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and electron injection layer, an electron blocking layer etc.”)
Wherein the hole transport layer includes the amine-containing compound ([0004]: “Accordingly, the present invention aims to provide a novel organic light-emitting compound that can be employed as a host compound for… a hole transport layer.”)
Wherein the hole transport layer directly contacts the emission layer (In the device structure described in [0089] above, the hole transport layer is directly next to the light-emitting layer.)
Hyun teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Hyun as Hyun demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 8, Hyun teaches:
An electronic device comprising the light-emitting device (As an organic light-emitting device is an electronic device, Hyun meets the claimed limitations.)
As per claim 10, Hyun teaches:
Wherein the electronic apparatus is a flat panel display ([0009]: “An organic electroluminescent device in which the organic light-emitting compound according to the present invention is employed in an electron blocking layer, a hole transport layer, or a light-emitting layer exhibits significantly superior light-emitting characteristics, such as long lifespan and light-emitting efficiency, compared to conventional devices, and can be usefully employed in various display devices.”)
As per claim 18, Hyun teaches methyl substituents on the fluorenyl group in compound 217 above. However, in Formula (I)
PNG
media_image5.png
172
238
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, Y is defined a being selected from CR1R2 wherein R1 and R2 are each selected from an alkyl group or an aryl group having 6 carbon atoms ([0012 – 0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the methyl substituents on the fluorenyl group of compound 217 above with phenyl groups.
Hyun includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hyun being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of long lifespan and light-emitting efficiency ([0009]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 20, the only difference between compound 217 above claimed compound 53
PNG
media_image6.png
136
152
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is the phenylene linker between the fluorenyl group and the amine group. However, the general formula of Hyun teaches that the amine-based group is of Structural Formula 2
PNG
media_image7.png
138
216
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0019]) where L can be a single bond ([0025]). Hyun also teaches compound such as compound 211
PNG
media_image8.png
124
128
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein the amine group is bonded directly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly modify compound 217 above to remove the phenylene linker group and arrive at claimed compound 53.
Hyun includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hyun being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of long lifespan and light-emitting efficiency ([0009]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR20180112962A, using the provided English language translation) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 8, 10 – 18 and 20 above and further in view of Park (US20180226585A1).
As per claims 6 and 7, Hyun does not teach:
The light emitting device comprising a first capping layer outside the first electrode, wherein the first capping layer includes the amine-containing compound.
Park teaches OLEDs can include a protective layer or capping layer on at least one of the sides of the first and second electrodes, which is a side opposite to the organic material layer ([0058]). Park further teaches amine-based compounds ([0023]). These compounds are similar to the compounds of Hyun. Park teaches that the compounds can be used in the hole transport layer or a capping layer ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a protective layer or capping layer on the OLED of Hyun because Park teaches that the arrangement was known as a predictably suitable arrangement of OLEDs prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have further been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Hyun in the capping layer as claimed, because Park teaches that amine-based compounds that are suitable for use in hole transport layers are also predictably suitable in capping layers ([0059]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR20180112962A, using the provided English language translation) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 8, 10 – 18 and 20 above and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 9, Hyun teaches:
A thin-film transistor electrically connected to the light-emitting device ([0100]: “In addition, the organic light-emitting compound according to the present invention can also function in organic electronic devices, including organic solar cells, organic photosensitive materials and organic transistors.”)
Hyun does not teach:
The device comprising a color conversion layer
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of Hyun because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20240324268A1, WO2023273998A1, and WO2023211063A1 all teach compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on (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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights