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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 07/22/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2-10, 12-14, 17, 25, and 36 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 11, 15-16, 18, 24, 26-29, 35, and 37-39 are pending.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 19-23 and 30-34 obviates the rejections of claims 19-23 and 30-34 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claims 1 and 16 has overcome:
the rejections of claims 1, 11, 15-16, 18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2021/0005822 A1, hereafter Moon) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0399222 A1, hereafter Park) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Ma),
the rejections of claims 19-21 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2021/0005822 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0399222 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 1, 11, 15-16, 18, and 29 above, further in view of Heo et al. (US 2018/0337341 A1, hereafter Heo).
the rejections of claims 24 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2021/0005822 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0399222 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 1, 11, 15-16, 18, and 29 above, further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1, hereafter Forest),
the rejections of claims 26-28 and 37-39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2021/0005822 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0399222 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 1, 11, 15-16, 18, and 29 above, further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2009/0015140 A1, hereafter Kawakami),
the rejections of claims 16, 18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2021/0005822 A1) in view of Voges et al. (US 2015/0270506 A1, hereafter Voges) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to),
the rejections of claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2021/0005822 A1) in view of Voges et al. (US 2015/0270506 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 16, 18, and 29 above, further in view of Heo et al. (US 2018/0337341 A1),
the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2021/0005822 A1) in view of Voges et al. (US 2015/0270506 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 16, 18, and 29 above, further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1), and
the rejections of claims 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2021/0005822 A1) in view of Voges et al. (US 2015/0270506 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 16, 18, and 29 above, further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2009/0015140 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 10 of the reply filed 03/24/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 11, 15-16, 18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Park/Ma, the rejection of claims 24 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Park/Ma/Forest, and the rejection of claims 26-28 and 37-39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Park/Ma/Kawakami set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 have been considered.
Those rejections have been withdrawn because the those rejections were not applied to the previous claims 20 and 31 which have been incorporated in the independent claims 1 and 16. Arguments are moot.
Applicant’s arguments see page 10-15 of the reply filed 03/24/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 19-21 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Park/Ma/Heo set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 and the Declaration by Soung Yun Mun under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 3/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over the cited reference.
The rejections refer to the Compound p14-1 of Heo which does not contain a cyano group at the positions corresponding to Ar16 and Ar17 such that the rejections are withdrawn. However, Heo teach a compound having identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 6-2.
New grounds of rejections are applied using a new primary reference Kim et al. (US 2021/0336153 A1). Kim discloses an organic electric element (“organic electroluminescent device”) comprising a light emitting layer containing a first host of Formula 1 and a second host of Formula 2 ([0005]).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim exemplifies an organic electric element (Example 4 in [0074], [0076], Table 1) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 as a first host, Compound C2-1 as a second host, D-78 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
In the organic electronic element of Kim, the electron transport layer does not have a compound represented by Applicant’s Formula 6-2 or 6-3; however, Kim does teach that an electron transport layer can be incorporated and azine-based compound can be used for the electron transport material ([0060]).
Heo discloses an azine-based compound used as the electron transport layer ([0183], [0322]) of an organic electric element (“organic light emitting device” in [0005]-[0006]) and exemplifies a compound ([0175] the second compound on page 178, hereafter Compound p178-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound p178-2 of Heo has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 6-2.
Heo teaches that the light emitting element comprising the compound provides enhanced efficiency, low driving voltage, and enhanced life ([0021]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electric elements of Kim by incorporating the Compound p178-2 of Heo as the electron transport layer material, as taught by Kim and Heo.
New grounds of rejection are applied using the Compound p178-2 of Heo. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant argues that the combination is lack of motivation (page 11).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
New grounds of rejections over Kim (US 2021/0336153 A1) in combination of Park, Ma, Heo are applied. The new grounds of rejection refer to the Modified compound of Park (2) which has identical structure of Applicant’s Formula 5 of the instant claim 1.
Kim discloses an organic electric element (Example 4 in [0074], [0076], Table 1) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 as a first host, Compound C2-1 as a second host, D-78 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The hole transport layer does not include the compound of Applicant’s Formula 5 of the instant claims; however, Kim does teach that a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer can be incorporated and amine-based compounds can be can be used for the hole injection and hole transport layers ([0060]).
Park discloses a first compound of Formula 1 used for a hole injection layer and a second compound of Formula 2 used for a hole transport layer (Abstract, [0010]-[0011], [0016]).
Park teaches that the second compound can be Formula C-12, wherein R1 and R2 can be C1-C10 alkyl group ([0155]). Park exemplifies a methyl group as the C1-C10 alkyl group (Compound 2-1 in [0440] and Table 2).
Park teaches that the light emitting device of Park provides a low deriving voltage, high efficiency, and a long lifespan ([0088]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electric element of Kim by incorporating a compound of Formula 1 of Park as a hole injection layer material and the compound of Formula C-12 of Park as a hole transport layer material, wherein R1 and R2 are each a methyl group, as taught by Kim and Park.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a low deriving voltage, high efficiency, and a long lifespan, based on the teaching of Park.
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 12-15 of the reply filed 03/24/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 19-21 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Park/Ma/Heo set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 and the Declaration by Soung Yun Mun under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 3/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the instant invention has unexpected results (page 12-15).
Applicant’s arguments based on the data comparing the closest prior art Moon are moot because the rejections are withdrawn.
In this Office Action, new grounds of rejections over Kim (US 20210336153 A1, hereafter Kim) in view of Park, Ma, and Heo are applied. Teaching of Park, Ma, and Heo are maintained from the previous rejections (i.e. Moon in view of Park, Ma, and Heo).
The closest prior art is the organic electric element of Kim (i.e. Example 4 in [0074], [0076], Table 1). None of data in the Declaration has shown the unexpected results with respect to the closest prior art Kim. That is, the comparison was not made to the closest prior art by Kim.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
For at least this reason the arguments are not found persuasive.
It should be informed that there are multiple prior arts to teach an organic electric element comprising compounds represented by Applicant’s Formula 4-1-1. Those references can be found in the Pertinent Arts below. Those references can be used to make rejections similarly as Kim in combination of teaching references of Park, Ma, and Heo (or Voges, Ma, and Heo).
Applicant’s arguments see page 16-17 of the reply filed 03/24/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 16, 18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Voges/Ma, the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Voges/Ma/Forrest, the rejections of claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Voges/Ma/Kawakami set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 have been considered.
Those rejections have been withdrawn because the those rejections were not applied to the previous claims 20 and 31. Arguments are moot.
Applicant’s arguments see page 16-17 of the reply filed 03/24/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Voges/Ma/Heo set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Examiner’s rationale does not explain how substituting Voges’ compound (1) (or Voges’ HTL system) into Moon’s two layer hole transport structure would achieve Voges’ benefits.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim discloses an organic electric element (Example 4 in [0074], [0076], Table 1) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 as a first host, Compound C2-1 as a second host, D-78 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound C1-43 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 4-1-1.
The hole transport layer does not include the compound of Applicant’s Formula 5 of the instant claims; however, Kim does teach that a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer can be incorporated and amine-based compounds can be can be used for the hole injection and hole transport layers ([0060]).
Voges discloses hole transport layers of an organic electric element (hole transport layers A, B, and C in [0001], [0011]-[0015]).
Voges exemplifies Compound (1) used as the hole transport material of the hole transport layers ([0095]).
PNG
media_image3.png
282
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound (1) of Voges has identical structure as Formula 5 of claim 16.
Voges teaches that the organic electric element according to the invention provides high efficiency, longer lifetime, and lower voltage ([0017]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electric element of Kim by substituting the hole transport region (i.e. hole injection layer and hole transport layer) with hole transport layers (i.e. hole transport layers A, B, and C) comprising Compound (1) of Voges, as taught by Kim and Voges.
Kim does not restrict the structure of the hole transport region including a hole injection layer, hole transport layer (s), and an electron blocking layer. The organic electric element of Kim requires a light emitting layer comprising Formula 1 and Formula 2 ([0005]). Except the requirement, any other organic layers including hole injection layer(s), hole transport layer(s), electron blocking layer(s) can be optionally added or modified (See paragraph [0060]). Kim further teaches amine-based compounds can be can be used for the hole injection and hole transport layers ([0060]). Thus, an ordinary skill in the art would know that any known hole transport layer structures and materials can be applied to the device of Kim.
Voges discloses hole transport layers of an organic electric element (hole transport layers A, B, and C in [0001], [0011]-[0015]). Voges do not restrict light emitting layer and electron transport region; thus, the light emitting layer and electron transport region of the device of Kim can be combined with the hole transport layer design of Voges. The crux of the invention of Voges is the hole transport region, and Voges teaches that the organic electric element based on the invention of Voges provides high efficiency, longer lifetime, and lower voltage ([0017]). Voges exemplifies Compound (1) of Voges which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 5. Voges teaches the multi-layer structure of the hole transport region of an organic electric element (see examples in Table 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electric element of Kim by substituting the hole transport region (i.e. hole injection layer and hole transport layer) with hole transport layers (i.e. hole transport layers A, B, and C) comprising Compound (1) of Voges, as taught by Kim and Voges.
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 17 of the reply filed 03/24/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/Voges/Ma/Heo set forth in the Office Action of 09/24/2025 and the Declaration by Soung Yun Mun under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 3/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the instant invention has unexpected results (page 17).
As outlined above, the new grounds of rejection rely on the primary reference by Kim. The closest prior art is the organic electric element of Kim (i.e. Example 4 in [0074], [0076], Table 1). None of data in the Declaration has shown the unexpected results with respect to the closest prior art Kim. That is, the comparison was not made to the closest prior art by Kim.
For at least the reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0336153 A1, hereafter Kim) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0399222 A1, hereafter Park) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Ma).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 15, Kim discloses an organic electric element (“organic electroluminescent device”) comprising a light emitting layer containing a first host of Formula 1 and a second host of Formula 2 ([0005]).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim exemplifies an organic electric element (Example 4 in [0074], [0076], Table 1) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 as a first host, Compound C2-1 as a second host, D-78 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound C1-43 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 4-1-1.
The hole transport layer does not include the compound of Applicant’s Formula 5 of the instant claims; however, Kim does teach that a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer can be incorporated and amine-based compounds can be can be used for the hole injection and hole transport layers ([0060]).
Park discloses a first compound of Formula 1 used for a hole injection layer and a second compound of Formula 2 used for a hole transport layer (Abstract, [0010]-[0011], [0016]).
Park teaches that the second compound can be Formula C-12, wherein R1 and R2 can be C1-C10 alkyl group ([0155]). Park exemplifies a methyl group as the C1-C10 alkyl group (Compound 2-1 in [0440] and Table 2).
Park teaches that the light emitting device of Park provides a low deriving voltage, high efficiency, and a long lifespan ([0088]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electric element of Kim by incorporating a compound of Formula 1 of Park as a hole injection layer material and the compound of Formula C-12 of Park as a hole transport layer material, wherein R1 and R2 are each a methyl group, as taught by Kim and Park.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a low deriving voltage, high efficiency, and a long lifespan, based on the teaching of Park.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of amine-based compound in the hole injection and transport layer of the organic electric element of Kim would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The substitution of alkyl groups of C1-C10 with a methyl group at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of the Formula C-12 of Park would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). A methyl group at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula C-12 of Park are one of finite number of specifically exemplified substituents. The selection of methyl at the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula C-12 of Park would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer (Modified compound C-12 of Park (2)), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
PNG
media_image4.png
358
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Park has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 5.
The device does not have a light emitting auxiliary layer comprising a compound of Applicant’s Formula 1; however, Kim does teach that the organic electric element of Kim can further comprises a light emitting auxiliary layer (“hole auxiliary layer”) which can have an amine-based compound ([0122]). Park also teaches an emission auxiliary layer can be incorporated in addition to the hole transport layers of Park ([0157]-[0158]).
Ma discloses an arylamine compound (formula I on page 2) used as a light emitting auxiliary layer material (“luminescence auxiliary material” on page 2) and exemplifies compound 70 (page 10). Ma teaches the light emitting auxiliary layer is disposed between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (page 35).
PNG
media_image5.png
197
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ma teaches the compound of Ma provides the light emitting element with reduced driving voltage, increased luminous efficiency and life (page 28, paragraph 1).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park by incorporating a light emitting auxiliary layer comprising the Compound 70 of Ma, as taught by Kim, Park, and Ma.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the light emitting element with reduced driving voltage, increased luminous efficiency and life based on the teaching of Ma.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of amine-based light emitting auxiliary layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park and Ma comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer (Modified compound C-12 of Park (2)), a light emitting auxiliary layer (Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound 70 of Ma has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the ethyl group substituted to the diphenyl fluorene group of the Compound 70 of Ma is required to be a methyl group (see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Ma does teach a methyl can be substituted to the position corresponding to R1 of Formula I of Ma (page 2; and the methyl group in the examples including at least Compound 54 on page 9). Substitution of ethyl with methyl at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula I of Ma would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Additionally, ethyl and methyl are homologs.
With respect to homologs, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park and Ma by substituting the ethyl group of the Compound 70 of Ma with a methyl group, as taught by Ma. A compound substituted by a methyl group would be a homolog of the compound substituted by an ethyl group at the same substitution position. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect both compounds would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified compound 70 of Ma.
PNG
media_image6.png
241
544
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Modified Compound 70 of Ma has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1.
The modification also provides Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park and Ma (2) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer (Modified compound C-12 of Park (2)), a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The electron transport layer does not have a compound represented by Applicant’s Formula 6-2 or 6-3; however, Kim does teach that an electron transport layer can be incorporated and azine-based compound can be used for the electron transport material ([0060]).
Heo discloses an azine-based compound used as the electron transport layer ([0183], [0322]) of an organic electric element (“organic light emitting device” in [0005]-[0006]) and exemplifies a compound ([0175] the second compound on page 178, hereafter Compound p178-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound p178-2 of Heo has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 6-2.
Heo teaches that the light emitting element comprising the compound provides enhanced efficiency, low driving voltage, and enhanced life ([0021]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electric elements of Kim as modified by Park and Ma (2) by incorporating the Compound p178-2 of Heo as the electron transport layer material, as taught by Kim and Heo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide enhanced efficiency, low driving voltage, and enhanced life based on the teaching of Heo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park, Ma, and Heo (2) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer (Modified compound C-12 of Park (2)), a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p178-2 of Heo), and a second electrode.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0336153 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0399222 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 15 above, further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1, hereafter Forest).
Regarding claim 24, the Organic electric elements of Moon as modified by Park and Ma (2) reads on all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer (Modified compound C-12 of Park (2)), a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p178-2 of Heo), and a second electrode.
The device emits a single color (i.e. red).
Forrest discloses a multicolor organic electroluminescent device (“multicolor organic light emitting device” in Abstract; [0038]-[0039]; and Fig. 2A) comprising three stacked EL units (blue, green, and red in Fig. 2A) in between a first electrode (35 in Fig. 2A) and a second electrode (26 in Fig. 2A), wherein each EL unit has identical structure except the emitting dopant ([0038]-[0039]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electric elements of Kim as modified by Park and Ma (2) by stacking three EL units which has the same organic layer structure but different emitting dopants (i.e. each EL unit contains blue, green, or red dopant), as taught by Forrest.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a multicolor organic electroluminescent device, based on the teaching of Forrest.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Stacked organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park, Ma, and Forrest comprising two or more stacks, each stack has the same organic structures as those of the organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park and Ma (2) except dopants and comprises a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer sequentially formed on the first electrode.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0336153 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0399222 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 15 above, further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2009/0015140 A1, hereafter Kawakami).
Regarding claims 26-28, the Organic electric elements of Moon as modified by Park and Ma (2) reads on all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer (Modified compound C-12 of Park (2)), a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p178-2 of Heo), and a second electrode.
Kim does not disclose a specific electronic device comprising the Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park and Ma (2); however, Kim does teach that the organic electric element of Kim can be used to produce an electronic device such as a cell phone (“smartphone”) and TV ([0072]).
Kawakami discloses an electronic device (cellular phone and TV in [0195] and Fig. 8A-8B). Kawakami teaches that the electronic device ([0195]) includes a display device (“panel” in Fig. 5, [0167]) containing organic light emitting element (4011 in Fig. 5, [0169]), and a control unit (“thin film transistor”, 4008 and 4010 in Fig. 5, [0169]) for driving the display device.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electric elements of Kim as modified by Park and Ma (2) by incorporating each of them in a display device such as a cellular phone or TV, as taught by Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic electric elements in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides an electronic device (a cellular phone or a TV) comprising a display device containing the Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Park and Ma (2), and a control unit for driving the display device, wherein the electronic device is a wired and/or wireless communication terminal.
Claims 16, 18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0336153 A1) in view of Voges et al. (US 2015/0270506 A1, hereafter Voges) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to).
Regarding claims 16, 18, and 29, Kim discloses an organic electric element (“organic electroluminescent device”) comprising a light emitting layer containing a first host of Formula 1 and a second host of Formula 2 ([0005]).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim exemplifies an organic electric element (Example 4 in [0074], [0076], Table 1) comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 as a first host, Compound C2-1 as a second host, D-78 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound C1-43 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 4-1-1.
The hole transport layer does not include the compound of Applicant’s Formula 5 of the instant claims; however, Kim does teach that a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer can be incorporated and amine-based compounds can be can be used for the hole injection and hole transport layers ([0060]).
Voges discloses hole transport layers of an organic electric element (hole transport layers A, B, and C in [0001], [0011]-[0015]).
Voges exemplifies Compound (1) used as the hole transport material of the hole transport layers ([0095]).
PNG
media_image3.png
282
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound (1) of Voges has identical structure as Formula 5 of claim 16.
Voges teaches that the organic electric element according to the invention provides high efficiency, longer lifetime, and lower voltage ([0017]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electric element of Kim by substituting the hole transport region (i.e. hole injection layer and hole transport layer) with hole transport layers (i.e. hole transport layers A, B, and C) comprising Compound (1) of Voges, as taught by Kim and Voges.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high efficiency, longer lifetime, and lower voltage based on the teaching of Voges.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of amine-based compound in the hole injection and transport layer of the organic electric element of Kim would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges comprising a first electrode, hole transport layers comprising the Compound (1) of Voges, a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The device does not have a light emitting auxiliary layer comprising a compound of Applicant’s Formula 1; however, Kim does teach that the organic electric element of Kim can further comprises a light emitting auxiliary layer (“hole auxiliary layer”) which can have an amine-based compound ([0122]). Voges also teaches an additional layers such as electron blocking layer between a hole transport layers and a light emitting layer can be incorporated ([0113]). The electron blocking layer is equated with the light emitting auxiliary layer of the instant claims.
Ma discloses an arylamine compound (formula I on page 2) used as a light emitting auxiliary layer material (“luminescence auxiliary material” on page 2) and exemplifies compound 70 (page 10). Ma teaches the light emitting auxiliary layer is disposed between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (page 35).
PNG
media_image5.png
197
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ma teaches the compound of Ma provides the light emitting element with reduced driving voltage, increased luminous efficiency and life (page 28, paragraph 1).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges by incorporating a light emitting auxiliary layer comprising the Compound 70 of Ma, as taught by Kim, Voges, and Ma.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the light emitting element with reduced driving voltage, increased luminous efficiency and life based on the teaching of Ma.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of amine-based light emitting auxiliary layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma comprising a first electrode, hole transport layers comprising the Compound (1) of Voges, a light emitting auxiliary layer (Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound 70 of Ma has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula 1. The only difference is that the ethyl group substituted to the diphenyl fluorene group of the Compound 70 of Ma is required to be a methyl group (see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Ma does teach a methyl can be substituted to the position corresponding to R1 of Formula I of Ma (page 2; and the methyl group in the examples including at least Compound 54 on page 9). Substitution of ethyl with methyl at the position corresponding to R1 of Formula I of Ma would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Additionally, ethyl and methyl are homologs.
With respect to homologs, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma by substituting the ethyl group of the Compound 70 of Ma with a methyl group, as taught by Ma. A compound substituted by a methyl group would be a homolog of the compound substituted by an ethyl group at the same substitution position. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect both compounds would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified compound 70 of Ma.
PNG
media_image6.png
241
544
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Modified Compound 70 of Ma has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1.
The modification also provides Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma (2) comprising a first electrode, hole transport layers comprising the Compound (1) of Voges, a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode.
The electron transport layer does not have a compound represented by Applicant’s Formula 6-2 or 6-3; however, Kim does teach that an electron transport layer can be incorporated and azine-based compound can be used for the electron transport material ([0060]).
Heo discloses an azine-based compound used as the electron transport layer ([0183], [0322]) of an organic electric element (“organic light emitting device” in [0005]-[0006]) and exemplifies a compound ([0175] the second compound on page 178, hereafter Compound p178-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound p178-2 of Heo has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 6-2.
Heo teaches that the light emitting element comprising the compound provides enhanced efficiency, low driving voltage, and enhanced life ([0021]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electric elements of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma (2) by incorporating the Compound p178-2 of Heo as the electron transport layer material, as taught by Kim and Heo.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide enhanced efficiency, low driving voltage, and enhanced life based on the teaching of Heo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges, Ma, and Heo (2) comprising a first electrode, hole transport layers comprising the Compound (1) of Voges, a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p178-2 of Heo), and a second electrode.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0336153 A1) in view of Voges et al. (US 2015/0270506 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 16, 18, and 29 above, further in view of Forrest et al. (US 2001/0000005 A1).
Regarding claim 35, the Organic electric elements of Moon as modified by Voges and Ma (2) reads on all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, hole transport layers comprising the Compound (1) of Voges, a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p178-2 of Heo), and a second electrode.
The device emits a single color (i.e. red).
Forrest discloses a multicolor organic electroluminescent device (“multicolor organic light emitting device” in Abstract; [0038]-[0039]; and Fig. 2A) comprising three stacked EL units (blue, green, and red in Fig. 2A) in between a first electrode (35 in Fig. 2A) and a second electrode (26 in Fig. 2A), wherein each EL unit has identical structure except the emitting dopant ([0038]-[0039]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electric elements of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma (2) by stacking three EL units which has the same organic layer structure but different emitting dopants (i.e. each EL unit contains blue, green, or red dopant), as taught by Forrest.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a multicolor organic electroluminescent device, based on the teaching of Forrest.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Stacked organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges, Ma, and Forrest comprising two or more stacks, each stack has the same organic structures as those of the organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma (2) except dopants and comprises a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer sequentially formed on the first electrode.
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0336153 A1) in view of Voges et al. (US 2015/0270506 A1) and Ma et al. (CN 111440156 A, machine translated English version is referred to) as applied to claims 16, 18, and 29 above, further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2009/0015140 A1).
Regarding claims 37-39, the Organic electric elements of Moon as modified by Voges and Ma (2) reads on all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, hole transport layers comprising the Compound (1) of Voges, a light emitting auxiliary layer (Modified Compound 70 of Ma), a light emitting layer (Compound C1-43 of Kim as a first host, Compound C2-1 of Kim as a second host, D-78 of Kim as a dopant), an electron transport layer (Compound p178-2 of Heo), and a second electrode.
Kim does not disclose a specific electronic device comprising the Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma (2); however, Kim does teach that the organic electric element of Kim can be used to produce an electronic device such as a cell phone (“smartphone”) and TV ([0072]).
Kawakami discloses an electronic device (cellular phone and TV in [0195] and Fig. 8A-8B). Kawakami teaches that the electronic device ([0195]) includes a display device (“panel” in Fig. 5, [0167]) containing organic light emitting element (4011 in Fig. 5, [0169]), and a control unit (“thin film transistor”, 4008 and 4010 in Fig. 5, [0169]) for driving the display device.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electric elements of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma (2) by incorporating each of them in a display device such as a cellular phone or TV, as taught by Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of organic electric elements in a display device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides an electronic device (a cellular phone or a TV) comprising a display device containing the Organic electric element of Kim as modified by Voges and Ma (2), and a control unit for driving the display device, wherein the electronic device is a wired and/or wireless communication terminal.
Pertinent Arts
The following references teach an organic electric element comprising a light emitting layer containing the compound represented by Applicant’s Formula 4-1-1. It would be obvious to modify the device by incorporating the compounds of Park (or Voges), Ma, and Heo to read on the claimed organic electric element similarly as the device of Kim above.
US 2021/0043848 A1 by Kim ‘848. See Device Example 1 comprising the Compound C-241 in Table 1.
US 2022/0384744 A1 by Lee. See Device Example 1-1 comprising the Compound C1-6 in Table 1.
US 2021/0126203 A1 by Jung. See Device Example 1-1 comprising the Compound H1-11 in Table 1.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights