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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 01/07/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-2 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (JP 2014/192214 A) and Itoi et al. (US 2016/0359113 A1) in view of Hamada et al. (US 2014/0034929 A1), claims 3-4 as being unpatentable over Kubota, Itoi, and Hamada as applied above and further in view of Shimamura et al. (JP 2005/120030 A1), and claims 6-8 as being unpatentable over Kubota, Itoi, and Hamada as applied above and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-5 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the independent claim is now drawn to a highly specific embodiment not predicted by the art, Examiner disagrees.
At the outset, Examiner notes that none of the embodiments of the instant specification bear the, now claimed, methyl-substituted m-phenylene linking group. If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima face case (MPEP 2145). As a substituted m-phenylene linker is clearly taught by the prior art, the arguments are unpersuasive. A prima facie case of obviousness can also be argued using evidence presented by Applicant (MPEP 2145). However, no data has been presented to distinguish the instantly claimed invention over the prior art, and the methyl group does not appear to make a contribution over the prior art. Thus, it is unclear whether the methyl substituted m-phenylene linker is inventive or arbitrarily selected. In the instant case, absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations in the prior art to arrive at the compound of the instant claim, as outlined below.
Further, Applicant’s argument that it is not proper to use the teachings of Itoi in view of a methyl substituent of instant R23, Examiner disagrees, particularly in light of the effect of the m-phenylene linker.
Itoi teaches that inclusion of a m-phenylene linker destroys the molecular symmetry of the material, leading to enhanced amorphous nature of the compound, thereby improving the emission efficiency. Adding a methyl substituent on the m-phenylene linker will not restore the symmetry of the compound nor diminish the amorphous nature of the compound. There is no teaching nor reason to believe that adding a methyl substituent, which is within the limitations of Itoi, will render the teaching void.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Itoi’s meta-linkage does not extend to compounds without naphthyl substituent, Examiner disagrees.
Itoi does indeed require a naphthyl group which is not a part of the instant independent claim, however, it is Examiner’s position that the teaching of a naphthyl moiety and the teaching of an m-phenylene linking group are separate teachings.
This is demonstrated, for example, by paragraph [0028], which is pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would recognize that the combination of an amine compound comprising a naphthyl group and a fluorenyl group results in high charge resistance and long lifespan is one teaching, and that linking the fluorenyl group to the amine through a m-phenylene linker resulting in high efficiency is a separate, second teaching, and inclusion of a naphthyl group is not necessary to achieve high efficiency.
This distinction between two different teachings is repeated throughout the prior art as demonstrated through paragraphs [0043], [0047], [0089], [0090], and [0092], which all teach that the combination of a fluorenyl group and naphthyl group result in high charge resistance and long lifespan, and paragraphs [0044], [0047], [0089], and [0092], which all teach in a separate sentence that when the amine is substituted with a fluorenyl group through an m-phenylene linker, the molecular symmetry of the material is destroyed and the amorphous nature of the compound may be enhanced, thereby improving the emission efficiency. It is clear to examiner that these teachings are mutually exclusive and inclusion of a naphthyl group is not required.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Itoi’s meta-linkage teaching does not mention methyl substitution on the meta-phenylene, Examiner disagrees.
In Formula 1 of Itoi, the m-phenylene linker bears substituent Ar3, which can be a methyl group (paragraph 0032, line 8 and paragraph 0037, line 2).
Applicant’s remaining arguments 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.
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 (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.
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.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et al. (US 2015/0270484 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Osaka teaches an organic light emitting element (Example 6, paragraphs 0297-0304 and FIG. 18) comprising an anode (ITO, paragraph 0298), a hole transport layer (1511), an electron blocking layer (a second hole-transport layer 1512, which is being interpreted as an electron-blocking layer as Osaka repeatedly throughout the prior art mentions that the compounds have excellent electron-blocking properties), and the electron-blocking layer comprises a fluorene derivative of the invention (paragraph 0297), such as compound (108) (page 9), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
512
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Osaka Formula (G1) (paragraph 0080), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
453
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Osaka also teaches that α4 can be represented by Formula (α-2) (paragraph 0085, pictured below), wherein α4 can be substituted by a methyl group (paragraphs 0082, lines 1-2 and 0083), and Ar1 can be biphenyl (paragraph 0086, line 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
152
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula (39) when w is 1 and R23 is a methyl group and all remaining R characters are hydrogen atoms, v is 3, u, x, and y are 4, z is 5, L20 and L21 are a single bond, and Ar20 is biphenyl.
Osaka teaches that when an alkyl group is used in General Formula (G1), the solubility in an organic solvent is improved; therefore, in a case where an element is formed using this material by a wet method, a use of a material having an alkyl group makes manufacturing an element easy, which is preferable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an alkyl group in the compound of Osaka in order to improve its solubility in an organic solvent and make manufacturing of an element by wet method easy, as taught by Osaka.
Osaka also teaches compound BPAFLP and mBPAFLP, which are pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image5.png
487
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
544
404
media_image6.png
Greyscale
These compounds differ only in the linking pattern on the phenylene group between the fluorene moiety and the amine nitrogen.
Osaka teaches that the LUMO of BPAFLP is -2.29 eV (paragraph 0229) and the LUMO of mBPAFLP is -2.39 eV (paragraph 0375). Osaka goes on to teach that the high LUMO level of mBPAFLP gives the compound improved electron-blocking properties (paragraph 0392).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preferentially select a m-phenylene bonding pattern in order to achieve improved electron-blocking properties, as taugth by Osaka.
Osaka includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Osaka being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent and bonding pattern from each of the finite lists of possible substituents and bonding patterns to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound with improved solubility in an organic solvent, making manufacturing of an element by wet method easy, and with improved electron-blocking properties, and which, when used in an organic electroluminescent device, conveys high luminous efficiency (paragraph 0026), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 6-8, Osaka teaches the organic electronic element of claim 1, and Osaka also teaches that the light-emitting element can be used to form an OLED device such as a television (paragraphs 0204 and 0205 and FIG. 6A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Osaka in a display device such as a wired television, as taught by Osaka.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786