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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 8-9, 15, and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-7, 10-14, 16, and 18-22 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, 12-13, 19, and 22 have been amended.
The cancelation of claims 8-9, 15, and 17 obviates the rejections of claims 8-9, 15, and 17 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendments of claims 5 and 19 have overcome the rejections of claims 5 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment of claims 1, 5, 12-13, 19, and 22 overcome the rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2023/0189638 A1, hereafter Lin) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 87-88 of the reply filed 07/20/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 5 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office Action of 04/24/2026 has been considered.
Applicant argues that Applicant has amended claims 5 and 19 by replacing dibenzoheterole with express recitations of dibenzothiophene and carbazole such that the amendment should address the Office’s concern.
The Examiner does not agree with all the arguments that Applicant made; however, the claims have been amended to delete the word “dibenzoheterole” and replace with dibenzothiophene and carbazole. For at least that reason, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 88-92 of the reply filed 07/20/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2023/0189638 A1, hereafter Lin) set forth in the Office Action of 04/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the claimed amine compounds in the amended claims 1 and 13 are not anticipated by Lin.
The claims refer to Compound 2 of Lin (see section 10 of the last Office Action), which does not read on the limitation of Formula 1 of the amended claims. Thus, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, Lin is still applicable to make new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Lin disclose a compound (Formula 1) used for a light emitting element ([0006]-[0007]) and exemplifies Compound 19 ([0071]).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 19 of Lin has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 1
PNG
media_image2.png
135
199
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The only difference between two compounds is that the ortho-phenylene group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) at the position corresponding to the L2 of Formula 1 of Lin is required to be a para-phenylene.
However, Lin does teach that the carbazolyl group can be substituted to any position of L2 (see the Formula 1 in [0007]). Lin exemplifies para-phenylene
PNG
media_image3.png
105
144
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, as the structure at the position corresponding to the L2 of Formula 1 of Lin ([0070]). Lin exemplifies specific embodiments wherein the linker L2 is a para-phenylene group (see examples in [0071] including at least Compounds 4, 7, 10, etc.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 19 of Lin by substituting the ortho-phenylene group at the position corresponding to L2 of Formula 1 of Lin with para-phenylene, as taught by Lin.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Lin which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and Applicant’s Compound 1.
New grounds of rejection are applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-7, 10-14, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2023/0189638 A1, hereafter Lin).
Regarding claims 1-7, 10-14, 16, and 18-22, Lin disclose a compound (Formula 1) used for a light emitting element ([0006]-[0007]) and exemplifies Compound 19 ([0071]).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 19 of Lin has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 1
PNG
media_image2.png
135
199
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The only difference between two compounds is that the ortho-phenylene group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) at the position corresponding to the L2 of Formula 1 of Lin is required to be a para-phenylene.
However, Lin does teach that the carbazolyl group can be substituted to any position of L2 (see the Formula 1 in [0007]). Lin exemplifies para-phenylene
PNG
media_image3.png
105
144
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, as the structure at the position corresponding to the L2 of Formula 1 of Lin ([0070]). Lin exemplifies specific embodiments wherein the linker L2 is a para-phenylene group (see examples in [0071] including at least Compounds 4, 7, 10, etc.)
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 19 of Lin by substituting the ortho-phenylene group at the position corresponding to L2 of Formula 1 of Lin with para-phenylene, as taught by Lin.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of ortho-phenylene with para-phenylene would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). There are only three different phenylene (ortho-, meta-, and para-phenylene). The selection of para-phenylene at the position corresponding to L2 of Formula 1 of Lin would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Additionally, a compound having a para-phenylene group is a position isomer with a similar compound having an ortho-phenylene group at the equivalent position, otherwise structures are same. It would have been obvious to modify the substitution of an ortho-substituted compound to a para-substituted compound. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner. See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
PNG
media_image4.png
242
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Lin which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and Applicant’s Compound 1, meeting all the limitations of claims 13-14, 16, and 18-22.
Lin does not disclose a specific light emitting element comprising the Modified compound of Lin; however, Lin does teach that the compound can be used as the hole transport or electron blocking materials of a light emitting element ([0015], [0017]).
Lin teaches the structure of a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole injection layer (HAT-CN), a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Compound 1), an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Ag) (Example 1 in [0108]-[0115] and Table 7).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Lin by incorporating it into the electron blocking layer of a light emitting element, as taught by Lin.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the electron blocking layer materials of Lin in the device of Lin would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting element of Lin comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole injection layer (HAT-CN), a hole transport layer (NPB), an electron blocking layer (Modified compound of Lin), an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Ag).
In the device, the electron blocking layer is disposed between the first electrode which is an anode and the emission layer. The electron blocking layer is necessarily capable of transporting holes because holes should move from the anode to the emission layer. Thus, the electron blocking layer is equated with a hole transport layer. Furthermore, the combined layers of the hole transport layer comprising NPB and the hole transport layer comprising the Modified compound of Lin are interpreted as a hole transport layer because none of claims require a hole transport layer to comprise a homogeneous mixture of the claimed compound. A composite hole transport layer comprising multiple sub hole transport layers is a hole transport layer.
The device is equated with a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (ITO), a hole injection layer (HAT-CN), a hole transport layer (sublayer 1 comprising NPB and sublayer 2 comprising the Modified compound of Lin), an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Ag), wherein the hole injection layer, the hole transport layers, the emission layer, and the electron transport layer are functional layers; the hole injection layer, the hole transport layers are a hole transport region; the electron transport layer is an electron transport region, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-7 and 10-12.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights