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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/23/2025 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 10/23/2025, which amends claims 1 and 5, and adds claim 11. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 10/23/2025, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2017/0117488 A1) is withdrawn by the Office.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0308143 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses Compound 31 (page 22), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Kim Formula 1, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
250
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim also teaches that X11 is C(R13)(R14) (paragraph 0008), R13 and R14 are a C1 alkyl (paragraph 0013, line 8) (methyl, paragraph 0252, line 4) group, and R26 is a 9-carbazolyl group (paragraphs 0085 and 0088 and Formula 5-26, page 12).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula 1-3 when R1 and R2 are each a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, Ar1 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-2, and Ar2 is a 9-carbazolyl group. In Formula 2-2, X1 is sulfur and R4 is a phenyl group.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 combination from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifespan when incorporated into an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0147), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 3, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and R1 and R2 are methyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 4, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and Ar3 and Ar4 are not present.
With respect to claim 5, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is the instant second embodiment.
With respect to claims 6, and 8 through 10, Kim teaches the compound of claims 1 and 3 through 5, and Kim also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode) (paragraph 0152), and one or more organic layers between the electrodes comprising the compound (paragraph 0153 and 0150).
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 the compound in an organic layer of the device with the claimed structure, as taught by Kim.
With respect to claim 11, Kim teaches the compound of claim 1, and Ar1 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-2, for the reasons discussed above.
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