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 (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.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 06/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
The objections to claims 2 and 7 as set forth in the previous Office Action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The objections are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-11 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. US-20150236274-A1 in view of Herron et al. US-20170025609-A1 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection are made in view of newly cited Koo et al. WO-2019088799-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 26-31 of the reply dated 06/18/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, they have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument -- Applicant argues on pages 29-31 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment. Specifically, that applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to the disclosure of Hatakeyama to arrive at the claimed second compound as amended or associated plurality of organic electroluminescent materials and additional disclosure of Herron does not cure the deficiency in Hatakeyama.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein in formula 2 of the second compound, ring C represents a substituted or unsubstituted mono- or polycyclic (3- to 50- membered) alicyclic or aromatic ring, or the combination thereof, which contains at least one heteroatom selected from O and S and X1 and X2 are each NR, and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below over newly cited Koo et al. WO-2019088799-A1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, it is suggested that the comma directly after "R" on numbered page 4 be deleted for ease of reading.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. WO-2019088799-A1 (referred to hereinafter as "Koo-WO" and see machine translation referred to as "Koo-MT") in view of Herron et al. US-20170025609-A1 (hereinafter "Herron").
Regarding claims 1-11, Koo teaches organic light emitting device comprising at least one organic compound layer disposed between a first electrode and a second electrode (page 20 of 46, lines 22-24), wherein the organic material layer comprises a structure including a hole injecting layer, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and an electron injecting layer as (Koo-MT, page 28 of 46, lines 13-15), wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound of a Formula 1 as a dopant material (Koo-MT, page 28 of 46, lines 26-28). Hatakeyama teaches examples of compound of a Formula 1 on pages 23-39 that read on the claimed formulae including compound
PNG
media_image1.png
108
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Koo-WO, page 39), which meets the claimed formulae 2 and 2-1 and corresponds to the second compound in claim 8.
Koo does not specifically disclose a device comprising a first compound of the claimed formula (1). However, Koo teaches that examples of hole injection and/or hole transport materials include arylamine-based organic materials (Koo-MT, page 30 of 46, lines 18-21 and lines 24-26).
Herron teaches a triarylamine derivative having Formula 1 (¶ [0009]) useful as hole transport materials (¶ [0243] and ¶ [0258]) and teaches that devices including the derivative has greater efficiency and longer lifetime (¶ [0255]-[0256]). Herron teaches specific examples of the triarylamine derivative of Formula 1 in paragraph [0238] that read on the claimed formulae including Compound 1
PNG
media_image2.png
350
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 7), which is a compound that meets claimed formulae 1 and 1-1 and corresponds to the claimed compound C-1 of claim 7.
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 have modified the device of Koo by forming the hole transport layer in the device of Koo comprising the Compound 1 of Herron, based on the teaching of Herron. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device having has greater efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by Herron.
The modified device meets claims 1-11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. US-20230002420-A1, which is cited on the IDS of 01/10/2024, teaches an organic light emitting device (¶ [0006]) comprising a light emitting layer comprising a compound of a Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
108
174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0008] and [0010]) and a first organic material layer comprising a compound of a Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image4.png
125
202
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0009] and [0017]), which is provided between the anode and the light emitting layer (¶ [0007]); and
Cha et al. WO-2021010656-A1, which is cited on the IDS of 01/10/2024, teaches an organic light emitting element comprising a light-emitting layer provided between a first electrode and a second electrode and a first organic material layer provided between the first electrode and the light emitting layer, wherein the first organic material layer includes a compound represented by chemical formula 1
PNG
media_image5.png
168
334
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and the light emitting layer includes a compound represented by chemical formula 2
PNG
media_image6.png
153
244
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Abstract, ¶ [16], ¶ [24]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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 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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
