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 .
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.
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 13-14, 17, 21-24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2020/0227644) (Lee).
In reference to claim 13-14, 21-23, 26 and 28, Lee teaches a compound of chemical formula A as shown below, wherein Har1 is a group of formula 1 wherein two of R5 to R8 are connected to Q below, for example the compound H12 below with groups L1, L2, L3, Ar1 and Ar2 selected as in H1 below and wherein L1 is bonded at R9 instead of at R1.
PNG
media_image1.png
108
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
298
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
496
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
196
304
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses the compound of chemical formula A that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including compound H12 with groups L1, L2, L3, Ar1 and Ar2 selected as in H1 above and wherein L1 is bonded at R9 instead of at R1. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Lee are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of chemical formula A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of chemical formula A to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Lee and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, it is noted that compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) 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 also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound presently claimed, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
For Claim 13: Reads on a compound of formula 1 wherein Z is a group of formula 2-1A, R21 to R29 are each hydrogen, n is 0, Ar1 is a biphenyl and Ar2 is a biphenyl.
For Claim 14: Reads on formula 1-1.
For Claim 21: Reads on a compound of formula A wherein Z is a group of formula 2-1A, R11 to R19 are each hydrogen, n is 0, and AM is a substituted amine group.
For Claim 23: Reads on formula A1.
For Claim 26: Reads on compound A6.
For Claim 28: Reads on compound A6.
In reference to claim 17 and 24, the claims further limit the L, which is an optional embodiment of claim 13 or 21 (i.e. n is 0 to 3) and therefore not required. As such, claims 17 and 24 are rejected based on similar reasons to claim 13 and 21.
In reference to claim 22, the claim further limits the heterocyclic group, which is an optional embodiment of claim 21 (i.e. AM is a substituted or unsubstituted amine group, or a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group including N as a ring-forming atom) and therefore not required. As such, claim 22 is rejected based on similar reasons to claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the rejections under 35 USC 103 over Lee et al, Applicant argues that Lee only teaches wherein Z is a group of formula 2-2A. However, Lee teaches, as pointed to above herein, that other positional isomers are possible such as that corresponding to wherein Z is 2-1A.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Independent claim 1 is drawn to an organic light emitting device with specific materials of formula 1 that are included in a hole transport region of the device.
A search of the prior art did not identify these materials.
The closest art corresponds to Lee et al (US 2020/0227644) (Lee). Lee teaches an organic light emitting device comprising the materials instantly claimed (Lee claim 1, throughout) but does not suggest that these materials are used in a hole transport region of the device. Neither Lee nor the prior art as a whole provide sufficiently specific motivation to modify the device of Lee to arrive at the instantly claimed devices.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, 25 and 27 are allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786