DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The objection to Claim 28 as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 09/18/25 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 09/18/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 19 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 09/18/25 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites compound (92) which is graphically unclear due to its low resolution and faded lines. They need to be replaced by structures comprising bonds, atoms, and labels which are legible and clearly drawn.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 19-22, 24-32, and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites that “Sub1 and/or Sub2 in Structural Formulae A8 and A9 are not hydrogen . . . or a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group” which renders the exact scope of the claims indefinite due to the term “and/or”; notice that “or” would also include the condition wherein both Sub1 and Sub2 are not “hydrogen . . . or a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group.” Based on the embodiments are recited in Claim 28, the Office has interpreted “and/or” to mean “or” only.
Correction is required.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
11. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim, which is dependent on Claim 19, recites several compounds which are outside the scope of Chemical Formula 2. For instance, the claim recites the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
174
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which is not encompassed by Chemical Formula 2 as recited in the parent claim (see conditions 1-3 on pages 6-7, wherein at least one of Sub1-2 cannot be hydrogen). The Applicant needs to ensure that all compounds recited in this claim are fully encompassed by Chemical Formula 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation as the English equivalent of foreign patent publication KR 10-2011-0105285 (herein referred to as “Je et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Je et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
256
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0010] of Je et al.) wherein at least one of R1-5 = formula (2) as shown below (page 3):
PNG
media_image3.png
136
92
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0015] of Je et al.). Various configurations are shown, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
218
172
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
236
180
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(pages 22-23 of Je et al.). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image6.png
158
156
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 30 of Je et al.). However, Je et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2, particularly in regards to the position of the -NR1R2 group. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the above compound such that the resulting compound fully conforms to the Applicant’s Formula 2 (with R17-18 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl), R22-25 = hydrogen, R1 = unsubstituted C12 aryl group (biphenyl), and R2 = substituted C6 aryl group (CH3O-substituted phenyl); Sub1 = unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) and Sub2 = unsubstituted C1 alkyloxy group (-OCH3) of Applicant’s Structural Formula A8 and Chemical Formula 8; Sub5-6 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Structural Formula B12 and Chemical Formula 5. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the position of the arylamino group, producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties (and easily envisioned from the scope of Je et al.’s general formula); additional motivation exists, including the fact that the production merely involves the selection of one possible embodiment selected from a highly finite list (as shown above), thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Je et al. further discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: substrate (10), anode (20), hole-injecting layer (30), hole-transporting layer (40), light-emitting layer (50), electron-transporting layer (60), electron-injecting layer (70), and cathode (80) (Fig. 1 of Je et al.); its inventive compounds serve as light-emitting materials (dopant materials) in the light-emitting layer which is combined with host material ([0006]-[0007]); alternatively, the compounds can serve as host material ([0142]). The light-emitting layer has a thickness of 0.5-500 nm ([0064]). The organic EL device can be used in displays and white lighting devices ([0072]). However, Je et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of any one of Formula 201, 202, and any combination thereof as recited in the claims.
Kim et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image7.png
147
194
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([46]) such that R201 = substituted C16 heterocyclic group (with R10a = phenyl), xa1 = 1, L201 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene), xa2-a3 = 0, and R202-203 = substituted C13 carbocyclic group (9,9’-dimethylfluorenyl (such that R10a = methyl)) or unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Formula 201. Kim et al. discloses that its inventive compounds serve as materials for the hole-injecting and/or hole-transporting layers of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with improved luminous efficiency and lowered driving voltage ([10]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the 1 as disclosed by Kim et al. (above) into the hole-injecting and/or hole-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Je et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kim et al., which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved luminous efficiency and lowered driving voltage.
15. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) as applied above and in further view of Yoon et al. (US 2003/0165715 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation as the English equivalent of foreign patent publication KR 10-2011-0105285 (herein referred to as “Je et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Je et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) of Claim 20 as shown above. However, they do not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant’s Formula 601 in the electron transport region.
Yoon et al. discloses the following compound for electron-injection and/or electron-transport, the use of which results in an organic EL device with high efficiency and thermal stability (Abstract):
PNG
media_image8.png
300
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 6) such that Ar601 = substituted C14 carbocyclic group (anthracene substituted with two R10as, with R10a = phenyl), xe1 = xe11 = xe21 = 1, L601 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene), and R601 = substituted C7 heterocyclic group (with substituent = R10a = phenyl; heterocyclic group = benzimidazole) of Applicant’s Formula 601. It would have been obvious to incorporate Compound (1-1) as disclosed by Yoon et al. into the electron-injecting and/or electron-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Je et al. in view of Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Yoon et al., which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in an organic EL device with high efficiency and thermal stability.
16. Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) as applied above and in further view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0145604 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation as the English equivalent of foreign patent publication KR 10-2011-0105285 (herein referred to as “Je et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Je et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) of Claim 19 as shown above. However, they do not explicitly disclose a p-dopant in the hole transport region.
Liao et al. discloses an organic EL unit comprising a hole-injecting layer that is p-doped in hole-injecting material; p-dopants include F4-TCNQ; the p-doping allows the electrical current to be “substantially carried by the holes” ([0038]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the p-doped composition as disclosed by Liao et al. into the hole-injecting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Je et al. in view of Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Liao et al., which discloses a known and viable hole-injecting composition for an organic EL device, the use of which allows significant generation of holes for charge transport.
17. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je et al. (KR 10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2010/110553 A2) as applied above and in further view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2002/0190257 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation as the English equivalent of foreign patent publication KR 10-2011-0105285 (herein referred to as “Je et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Je et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the electronic apparatus comprising the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device) of Claim 35 as shown above. Je et al. discloses that its organic EL device can be used in displays ([0072]). However, they do not explicitly disclose the additional components as recited in the claim.
Yamazaki et al. discloses a display device comprising a plurality of pixels, each of the pixels comprising an organic EL device elements; the pixel electrode (cathode) is connected to a thin-film transistor (TFT), and a color filter lies on the opposite side (Abstract; Fig.1). The method of display device construction as disclosed by Yamazaki et al. results in a reduction of total manufacturing cost (Abstract). It would have been obvious to utilize the method as disclosed by Yamazaki for the construction of displays comprising the organic EL device as disclosed by Je et al. in view of Kim et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Yamazaki et al., which discloses that its method of display device construction (comprising organic EL device elements) results in a display with lowered manufacturing cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 23 and 33 are allowed.
The closest prior art is provided by Dobbs et al. (US 2013/0264560 A1) which discloses triazine compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image9.png
129
380
media_image9.png
Greyscale
where Ar1-3 = independently:
PNG
media_image10.png
118
377
media_image10.png
Greyscale
where a = 1-5, b = 0-5, and c = 0-4 ([0064], [0067]-[0068]); Q = N, O, S-heterocycle (among others) ([0066]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image11.png
420
421
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(page 5). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Dobbs et al. singly nor in combination with any other prior art discloses the light-emitting device as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the position of the -NR1R2 group in combination with the nature of R1-2, R17-18, and R22-25 of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2 or the nature of the first and second capping layers of the device.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s arguments on pages 47-53 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above. Notice particularly the disclosure of Je et al. (see embodiment above) wherein one of Sub1-2 is not hydrogen, deuterium, substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C4 alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786