DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received December 9, 2025. Claims 1 and 8 were amended. Claims 1-8 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0155048 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment received December 9, 2025.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2016/0322578 A1; cited on 02/16/2026 I.D.S.).
Hwang et al. teaches compounds according to formula 2 (see abstract) per instant formula 10 of claims 1 and 8:
PNG
media_image1.png
246
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Y1 and Y2 may be O or S (see par. 12) such that one meets the requirement of the dibenzofuran of instant Formula 10 and the other reads upon an instant Ar2 as a heteroaryl. Ar2 may be phenyl and L4 may be naphthyl (see par. 13, 15, 118, and 120). More specifically, note that L4 may be naphthalene formula 3-6 having the same bonding position as the instant bonding position of L to naphthalene of instant formula 10 (see par. 53):
PNG
media_image2.png
58
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This bonding pattern corresponds to instant Formula 13 of claim 5.
Regarding device claim 1, the formula 2 is in a hole transport region and the device also includes an emission layer (see abstract) and an electron transport layer between electrodes (see par. 30).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, in Formula 2 Y2 may be oxygen (see par. 12) and substituent R7 may be a phenanthrenyl group (see par. 106-108). Further regarding claim 3, Y1 may be sulfur (see par. 12) and the R5 may be dibenzofuran or phenanthrenyl (see par. 106-108). The bonding locations recited in claims 2 and 4 are considered to be encompassed by the general teachings of the suitability of the groups at any bonding location. The general teachings of the aryl and heteroaryl groups are considered to encompass any of the specific bonding locations of groups as recited.
Regarding claim 6, Z1 of the 3-6 L group (see par. 53) may be hydrogen or deuterium (see par. 56).
Regarding claim 7, a layer containing formula 2 may be adjacent the emitting layer (see par. 148-153). The device includes both a hole transport layer and an auxiliary layer as the hole transport region per the requirement of a plurality of layers (see par. 148, 154).
While Hwang et al. does not appear to teach an example formula 2 compound where the groups were selected as discussed above, the groups are clearly defined for a formula 2 compound for a hole transport region of a device. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds as taught by the reference as described above wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds for device structures within the disclosure of Hwang et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106661445 (cited by applicant on 02/16/2026 I.D.S and translation copy provided with this office communication).
CN’445 teaches compounds according to Formula 3 for a hole transport auxiliary layer (see translation copy page 1 and formula on page 2):
PNG
media_image3.png
204
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula, X1 may be sulfur, n4 may be zero, L3 and L4 may be arylene or heteroarylene or may not be present if n5 or n6 are zero, Ar2 and Ar3 are aryl or heteroaryl, and the R groups may be hydrogen, deuterium, or aryl or heteroaryl (see page 2 of translation under formula 3). Specific aryl and heteroaryl groups are taught to include phenyl, naphthyl, phenanthryl, and dibenzofuranyl (see page 3 of translation and see also page 22). The teaching of definitions for each of the groups and variables of Formula 3 meet the requirements of compounds of Formula 10 recited in claims 1-8. The general teachings of the aryl and heteroaryl groups are considered to encompass any of the specific bonding locations of groups as recited.
Regarding the device structure of claims 1 and 7, a device includes a light emitting layer (32), a hole transport layer (31), a hole transport auxiliary layer containing the formula 3, (33) and an electron transport layer (34) between an anode (10) and cathode (20) (see Fig. 1 description from bottom of page 2 to top of page 3 of translation). The hole transport layer and auxiliary layer are a “plurality” per claim 7. Figure 1 (see CN patent document front page):
PNG
media_image4.png
172
342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
While CN’445 does not appear to teach an example formula 3 compound where the variable groups were selected as discussed above, the groups are clearly defined for a formula 3 compound for a hole transport region of a device. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds of formula 3 as taught by the reference as described above wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds for device structures within the disclosure of CN’445 with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,871,656. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘656 also teaches naphthyl-phenyl derivatives that may include a dibenzothiophene. Claim 1 is directed to a device with a hole transport region including arylamine formulas 2 to 8. Ar1 and Ar2 may be substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl (see claim 1). Layers of the device (claims 1, 9-11) include the order and configuration of layers as instantly claimed. In particular, see compounds A45, A46, and A51 of claim 12. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the patented claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by US 11,871,656 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of application 17/649,024. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘024 also teaches naphthyl-phenyl derivatives that may include a dibenzothiophene. Claim 1 is directed to a device with a hole transport region including formula 1 than may include substituted or unsubstituted dibenzothiophene, naphthyl-phenyl group and aryl/heteroaryl. Layers of the device include the order and configuration of layers as instantly claimed. In particular, see compound B13 of claim 12. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by co-pending 17/649,024 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of application 17/449,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘885 also teaches naphthyl-phenyl derivatives that may include substituted or unsubstituted dibenzothiophene, naphthyl-phenyl and aryl/heteroaryl. Claim 1 is directed to a device with a hole transport region including formula 1. Layers of the device include the order and configuration of layers as instantly claimed. In particular, see compounds B13 and B18 (can have corresponding L group) of claim 12. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by co-pending 17/449,885 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 of application 17/086,130. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘130 also teaches naphthyl-phenyl derivatives that may include a dibenzothiophene. Claim 1 is directed to a device with a hole transport region including formula 1. Layers of the device include the order and configuration of layers as instantly claimed. In particular, see compounds A12, A32, A52, A72, A92, and A112 of claim 12. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by co-pending 17/086,130 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. (Note that a Notice of Allowance was mailed on 02/23/2026, but the application has not issued as a patent yet.)
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US patent no. 12,391,872 (previously application 17/375,524). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘872 also teaches naphthyl-phenyl derivatives that may include a dibenzothiophene. Claim 1 is directed to a device with a hole transport region including formula 1 having substituted or unsubstituted groups. Layers of the device include the order and configuration of layers as instantly claimed. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by patent US 12,391,872 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
Claims 1, 4-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application 17/579,921. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘921 also teaches naphthyl-phenyl derivatives that may include a dibenzothiophene. Claim 1 is directed to a device with a hole transport region including formula 1 having substituted or unsubstituted groups. See at least #213-219 of claim 14. Layers of the device include the order and configuration of layers as instantly claimed (see claims 2, 4). Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by co-pending 17/579,921 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of application 16/842,556. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘556 also teaches naphthyl-phenyl derivatives that may include a dibenzothiophene as a Ar1 or Ar2 heteroaryl. Claim 1 is directed to a device with a hole transport region including formula 1 than may include substituted or unsubstituted dibenzothiophene, naphthyl-phenyl group and aryl/heteroaryl. Therefore, given the overlap between the present claims and the co-pending claims, it would have been within the skill level of, as well as obvious to, one of ordinary skill in the art to select a compound and to use a compound in a device which is both disclosed by co-pending 16/842,556 and encompassed by the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the present invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
No specific arguments were set forth for the obviousness double patenting rejections. The rejections are respectfully maintained.
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786