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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 7 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 12/03/2025.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. WO-2020138874-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 The rejection is withdrawn.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 Hatakeyama et al. US-20150236274-A1 and Herron et al. US-20170025609-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the Applicants' arguments on pages 24-31 of the reply dated 12/03/2025 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 page 31 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein the (C6-C30)aryl in the definition of Ar2 is deuterium-substituted or unsubstituted and wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are different from each other and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below over newly cited Hatakeyama et al. US-20150236274-A1 and Herron et al. US-20170025609-A1.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 2, it is suggested that "the substituted aryl(ene)" be replaced with "the substituted aryl, the substituted arylene" and "the substituted heteroaryl(ene)" be replaced with "the substituted heteroaryl, the substituted heteroarylene" for ease of reading; and
claim 7 appears to lack a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation Ar2 represents… a deuterium-substituted or unsubstituted (C6-C30)aryl…", and the claim also recites "wherein the (C6-C30)aryl is selected from the group consisting of phenyl, biphenyl….or azulenyl;" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For example, can a compound where Ar2 is an unsubstituted phenanthrene group read on the claims since it is an unsubstituted C14 aryl, or not, since it is not included in the specific list?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring that the (C6-C30)aryl is selected from the specific list.
Claims 2-11 are rejection as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the D1-# nomenclature represents. Does this mean that some or all of the hydrogens are substituted with deuterium?
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that D1-x represents that 1 to x hydrogens are replaced with deuterium.
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 Hatakeyama et al. US-20150236274-A1 (hereinafter "Hatakeyama") in view of Herron et al. US-20170025609-A1 (hereinafter "Herron").
It is noted that Herron et al. US-20170025609-A1 was cited on the IDS of 01/10/2024.
Regarding claims 1-11, Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element comprising a light emitting layer between a pair of electrodes and a hole injection layer and/or a hole transport layer disposed between the positive electrode and the light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a polycyclic aromatic compound of a general formula (1) (¶ [0037], ¶ [0039], ¶ [0104], ¶ [0107]) as the dopant material (¶ [0119]). Hatakeyama teaches examples of the polycyclic aromatic compound of a general formula (1) in paragraph [0078] that read on the claimed formulae including compound (1-401)
PNG
media_image1.png
131
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 37), which meets the claimed formulae 2 and 2-1 and corresponds to the first compound in claim 8.
Hatakeyama does not specifically disclose a device comprising a first compound of the claimed formula (1). However, Hatakeyama teaches that, regarding the material that forms the hole injection layer and the hole transport layer, any compound can be selected for use among the compounds that have been conventionally used as charge transporting materials for holes, p-type semiconductors, and known compounds that are used in hole injection layers and hole transport layers of organic electroluminescent elements and specific examples thereof include triarylamine derivatives (¶ [0114]).
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 Hatakeyama by forming the hole transport layer in the device of Hatakeyama 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]).
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
Prosecution Insights