Notice of 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 3/3/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended claims 2 and 5 by excluding the embodiment that R7 to R10 may be selected from a cyano group. Applicants have also amended claim 5 to further define the claimed Ar3 groups. The previously relied upon rejection to Kim et al. (KR-20190133617) has been withdrawn in light of these amendments. However, a new prior art rejection is described below.
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.
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 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0199911). Lee et al. has a foreign application filing date of 5/14/19, which is earlier than Applicants perfected foreign priority date of 12/26/19 and qualifies as prior art. Additionally, all of the subject matter disclosed in US 2022/0199911 can be found in the foreign application KR-10-2019-0056575.
Lee et al. teaches compounds which are employed in organic electroluminescent devices as a hole-transporting host material and/or as a material employed in a hole transport region, including a hole transport layer and a light-emitting auxiliary layer (paragraph 0046). The hole transporting host and/or hole transport region compound is taught as having a structure which satisfies Formula 1 (paragraph 0010), more specifically, one which satisfies Formulae 1-A through 1-C. In Formulae 1 and 1-C, rings A and B are taught to be independently selected from one of Formulae a-1 through a-9 (paragraph 0080). More preferred compounds of Formula 1 include compounds which satisfy one of Formula 1-1 through 1-6 (paragraph 0082). Formula 1-5 as taught in paragraph 0082 includes embodiments where X1 is selected from CR’R’’ as taught in paragraph 0067. Le et al. teaches that R’ and R’’ are selected from the groups recited in paragraph 0068. In all of the explicitly taught compounds P1-1 through P1-184 (paragraph 0085) those compounds where X1 is selected from CR’R’’, each of R’ and R’’ include methyl groups, unsubstituted phenyl groups, or R’ and R’’ are joined together to form a spiro bifluorenyl group. While none of the explicitly taught compounds of Lee et al. satisfy formula 1 of claim 5, the overall teachings above render obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of compounds which do satisfy claim 5. Specifically, compounds P1-68, P1-74, P1-77, and P1-80 satisfy all of the structural limitations of formula 1 of claim 5 with the exception that Ar1 and Ar2 are methyl groups or are joined together to form a spirobifluorene group. Claim 5 does not allow for Ar1 and Ar2 to be linear alkyl groups or that they form a spiro bifluorenyl group. However, given the small number of preferable R’ and R’’ groups taught in the specific compounds, the preparation of compounds which are analogous to compounds P1-68, P1-74, P1-77, and P1-80 but which have phenyl groups bonded to the benzofluorene moiety instead of methyl groups would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Changing from methyl groups to phenyl groups is an obvious variant as Lee et al. teaches that these groups represent suitable alternatives which are known to be employed. Because the list of preferred substituents is narrow, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a finite number of identified, predictable options to pursue with a reasonable expectation of success. This includes preparing analogs of compounds P1-68, P1-74, and P1-77 where phenyl groups are present as Ar1 and Ar2. Such compounds satisfy all of the structural limitations of claim 5. As one example, the diphenyl analog of compound P1-80 would have the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
198
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. As applied to formula 1, Ar1 and Ar2 are unsubstituted phenyl groups, R1-R7, R9, and R10 are hydrogen, R8 is a group satisfying -L1-N(Ar3)(Ar4) of claim 5 with L1 equal to a single bond, Ar3 equal to an unsubstituted phenyl, and Ar4 equal to a carbazole group. Additionally, this compound satisfies formula (1-3) of claim 2.
As stated above, the compounds of formula 1 as taught by Lee et al. are taught to be employed as a hole-transporting host compound and/or as a material to serve in a hole transport region of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0046). The employment of any one of the compounds taught and suggested by Lee et al., which includes the compound shown above as a non-limiting example, satisfies the device limitations of claims 5 and 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed. Lee et al. does not teach or reasonably suggest the specific compounds recited in claim 4. To arrive at such compounds using the disclosure of Lee et al. would require the use of improper hindsight reconstruction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766