DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goo et al. (KR 10-2013-0140303) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 04/09/26 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites “Ar1” and “Ar2” which must be replaced by “Ar1” and “Ar2,” respectively, for consistency with the recited formulae.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goo et al. (KR 10-2013-0140303).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of KR 10-2013-0140303 (herein referred to as “Goo et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Goo et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
174
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 16 of Goo et al.) such that L = direct bond, Ar1 = C12 aryl group (biphenyl), and Ar2 = substituted C6 aryl group (9-phenylcarbazolyl-substituted phenyl) of Applicant’s Formula 1-3. Goo et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image2.png
354
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 24 of Goo et al.); its inventive compounds comprise the hole-transporting (“Hole Transfer”) layer and/or the light-emitting (“Emission Material”) layer (pages 8-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 6, 7, and 17-20 are allowed.
The closest prior art is provided by Cha et al. (WO 2016/204453 A1), which discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image3.png
462
391
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0006]) where L1 = direct bond or substituted or unsubstituted arylene group ([0008]); such arylene groups include phenylene and fluorenylene ([0045]-[0047], [0057]); an embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image4.png
349
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 10). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Cha et al. singly nor in combination with any other prior art discloses any of the compounds as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the nature of the L group of Formula 1-1.
Response to Arguments
9. The Applicant argues on pages 17-19 that the new amends overcomes the Goo et al. reference as applied in the previous Office Action. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that the new condition as recited in Claim 1 requires that both Ar1 and Ar2 are not a carbazolyl group or an aryl group substituted with a carbazolyl group (when L in Formulae 1-3 and 1-4 is a direct bond); however, 10 as disclosed by Goo et al. only has Ar2 = aryl group substituted with a carbazolyl group (with Ar1 = biphenyl). In order to overcome Goo et al., the condition should require that when L = direct bond in Formula 1-3 and 1-4, neither Ar1-2 is a carbazolyl group or an aryl group substituted with a carbazolyl group.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
