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 .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 8/28/2026.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 8/28/2026. In particular, original Claims 1 and 13 have been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2023/0118826).
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer, i.e. a functional layer, disposed between the electrodes ([0009]). The organic layer includes a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer, where the hole injection or hole transport layer comprises the following compound ([0009], [0011] – Formula B, and Page 50 – Compound B-20):
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
166
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where X3 to X8 are hydrogen. X2 corresponds to Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
202
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 and R2 are hydrogen;
n2 is four (4);
n1 is three (3);
R3 and R4 are methyl groups, i.e. unsubstituted C1 alkyls; and
Y1 is a phenyl substituted carbazole-2-yl group. The carbazole meets the requirement in the claim that when Y1 is a carbazole group, the carbazole group is a carbazole-2-yl group.
In the compound disclosed by the reference X2 corresponds to Formula 2 and X1 is hydrogen, while the claims require that when X2 is represented by Formula 2, X1 or X3 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-4 alkyl. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0011] – Formula B):
PNG
media_image4.png
244
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar21, corresponding to the naphthyl group in Compound B-182 above, can be substituted with an alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl ([0031], [0034], and [0037]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where X1 or X3 in Formula 1 of the claims is a methyl, ethyl, propyl, or butyl group.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic layer includes: a light emitting layer and a hole transport region, i.e. hole injection and hole transport layers, between the light emitting layer and anode, i.e. first electrode ([0056]); and electron transport and electron injection layers, i.e. an electron transport region, between the light emitting layer and the cathode, i.e. second electrode ([0056]). As discussed above, the hole transport layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 3, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the hole transport layer comprises the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 4, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Given that the compound comprises a single amine group, it is clear that the compound is a monoamine compound as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 5, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Y1 is a substituted carbazole-2-yl group.
Regarding claim 6, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound corresponds to Formula 1-2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
198
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where Xb is C1-4 alkyl; and X21 to X26 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 7, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Xb is an unsubstituted methyl group.
Regarding claim 8, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, X21 to X26 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 9, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In this compound the diarylamino group does not correspond to Formula 2-1 of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image6.png
178
212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
given the difference in bonding of the fluorene to the central nitrogen atom. However, the reference discloses the following general formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
244
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where the bonding of the fluorine to the central nitrogen encompasses the bonding in Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In this compound, the diarylamino group corresponds to recited formula 2-2:
PNG
media_image7.png
180
246
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where R21 and R22 are both hydrogens.
Regarding claim 11, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In this compound, the diarylamino group does not correspond to Formula 2-3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
192
230
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, the reference discloses the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
244
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where L3 can be a C6 arylene ([0029]) and R5 in Formula 2-3 corresponds to the carbazole-2-yl group, where m1 is one (1).
Regarding claim 12, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where X1 is hydrogen and X3 is a methyl group. This compound does not correspond to Compound 83 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
154
160
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
However, the reference discloses the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
244
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which encompasses the fluorene and carbazole bonding in Compound 83 of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, Cho et al discloses the following compound (Page 50 - Compound B-20):
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
166
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where X3 to X8 are hydrogen. X2 corresponds to Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
202
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
R1 and R2 are hydrogen;
n2 is four (4);
n1 is three (3);
R3 and R4 are methyl groups, i.e. unsubstituted C1 alkyls; and
Y1 is a phenyl substituted carbazole-2-yl group. The carbazole meets the requirement in the claim that when Y1 is a carbazole group, the carbazole group is a carbazole-2-yl group.
In the compound disclosed by the reference X2 corresponds to Formula 2 and X1 is hydrogen, while the claims require that when X2 is represented by Formula 2, X1 or X3 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-4 alkyl. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to the following formula ([0011] – Formula B):
PNG
media_image4.png
244
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where Ar21, corresponding to the naphthyl group in Compound B-182 above, can be substituted with an alkyl group such as methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl ([0031], [0034], and [0037]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where X1 or X3 in Formula 1 of the claims is a methyl, ethyl, propyl, or butyl group.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound corresponds to Formula 1-2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
198
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where Xb is C1-4 alkyl; and X21 to X26 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 15, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Xb is an unsubstituted methyl group.
Regarding claim 16, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, X21 to X26 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 17, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In this compound, the diarylamino group does not correspond to Formula 2-1 of the claims, i.e.
PNG
media_image6.png
178
212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
given the difference in bonding of the fluorene to the central nitrogen atom. However, the reference discloses the following general formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
244
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where the bonding of the fluorine to the central nitrogen encompasses the bonding in Formula 2-1 of the claims.
Regarding claim 18, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to recited Formula 2-2:
PNG
media_image7.png
180
246
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where R21 and R22 are both hydrogens.
Regarding claim 19, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In this compound, the diarylamino group is a naphthyl group and not a benzene group as required by Formula 2-3 of the claims:
PNG
media_image8.png
192
230
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, the reference discloses the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
244
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where L3 can be a C6 arylene ([0029]), where R5 in Formula 2-3 corresponds to the carbazole-2-yl group, where m1 is one (1).
Regarding claim 20, Cho et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
where X1 is hydrogen and X3 is a methyl group. This compound does not correspond to Compound 83 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
154
160
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
However, the reference discloses the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
244
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which encompasses the fluorene and carbazole bonding in Compound 83 of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Cho does not contain a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the connectivity of the carbazole group from the 3-position as found in Compound B-182:
PNG
media_image10.png
252
356
media_image10.png
Greyscale
cited in the previous Office Action to the 2-positon as required in the as-amended claims. However, as discussed in the rejections set forth above, the reference discloses Compound B-20 (see Page 50):
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the carbazole is bonded to the central nitrogen at the 2-position. Accordingly, it is the Office’s position that the reference does provide an explicit teaching of a carabazole-2-yl group as required by the present claim.
As evidence of unexpected results of the claimed cargazol-2-yl position, Applicants point to the 37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declaration filed on 8/28/2026 which compares Comparative Compound 7:
PNG
media_image11.png
170
200
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where the carbazole is bonded at the 3-position to the central nitrogen, to Inventive Compound 5:
PNG
media_image12.png
182
210
media_image12.png
Greyscale
,
where the carbazole is bonded at the 2-position as required in the as-amended claims. While the Declaration presents a proper side-by-side comparison, it is significant to note that as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
and in this compound the carbazole is bonded at the 2-position as required by the present claims. Given that the reference explicitly exemplifies a compound with the required carbazole bonding position, it is the Office’s position that the reference recognizes the criticality of the carbazole-2-yl bonding, and it is for this reason that the data presented in the Declaration is not found to be persuasive.
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 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 ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights