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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on July 24, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 8 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 24, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mun as set forth in the office action filed February 25, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 24, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue as set forth in the office action filed February 25, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 24, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun as set forth in the office action filed March 1, 2024.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 24, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as set forth in the office action filed March 1, 2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 8 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on April 8, 2025 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee 2 (US20170301868A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, Lee 2 teaches:
An organic electroluminescent compound represented by the following formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
198
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee 2 teaches compounds, such as compound 1-8
PNG
media_image2.png
256
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; Ar2 is an unsubstituted dibenzothiophenyl, namely
PNG
media_image3.png
46
72
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in claim 3; Ar3 represents an unsubstituted phenyl, namely
PNG
media_image4.png
38
54
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of claim 3; L1 and L2 represent a single bond; R1 represents hydrogen and R2 represents an unsubstituted di-(C6-C30)arylamino and b is an integer of 1. This compound is of Formula 2 in claim 2.)
As per claims 7 and 8, Lee 2 teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising the electroluminescent compound, wherein the organic electroluminescent compound is contained in a hole transport layer and/or a light-emitting layer (In Table 4, Example 2, as described in [0123 – 0130], compound 1-8 is provided in an OLED in an emission-auxiliary layer. As holes as transported through the emission auxiliary layer to the emission layer, the emission auxiliary layer is a hole transport layer as claimed.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20220037594A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, 5 and 6, Lee teaches:
An organic electroluminescent compound represented by the following formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
198
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches compounds of Formula 2
PNG
media_image5.png
120
305
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0011]). A specific compound Lee teaches is compound 2-10
PNG
media_image6.png
286
338
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, where the carbazole group is linked via an aryl group, which is different from the definition of claimed variable L2. However, in the definition for L4 provided by Lee, L4 may be a single bond ([0097]). Lee also teaches compounds such as compound 2-1, where the L4 variable is a single bond.
PNG
media_image7.png
258
279
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. Similarly, while the bond of the amine group is not in the 1 position as claimed, in Formula 2, Lee teaches that the bond can be at any place on the phenyl ring. Lee also teaches compounds such as compound 2-108
PNG
media_image8.png
256
344
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein the amine group is bonded in the 1 position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify compound 2-10 to replace the aryl group with a single bond and to attach the amine group in the claimed position. When modified in this way, modified compound 2-10 reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; Ar2 is an unsubstituted o-biphenyl, namely
PNG
media_image9.png
63
69
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 3; Ar3 is an unsubstituted carbazolyl, namely
PNG
media_image10.png
68
68
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in claim 3, wherein A3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; L1 and L2 are single bonds; R1 and R2 each represent hydrogen; a represents an integer of 4, b represents an integer of 3, c represents an integer of 1. This compound is represented by Formula 2 in claim 2. This compound is the same as compound C-31
PNG
media_image11.png
120
136
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 6.)
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 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 results of lowered driving voltage, improved luminous efficiency and longer lifetime in organic electroluminescent devices comprising the compound (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 4, while modified compound 2-10 above teaches a o-biphenyl group in the Ar2 position, which is not allowed by the claim, Lee teaches compounds, such as compound 2-9
PNG
media_image12.png
230
328
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, wherein there is an unsubstituted dibenzothiophenyl group off of the amine group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to replace the o-biphenyl group of compound 2-10 with a dibenzothiophenyl group and arrive at the claimed compound.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 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 results of lowered driving voltage, improved luminous efficiency and longer lifetime in organic electroluminescent devices comprising the compound (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 7 and 8, Lee does not specifically teach the compound in an electroluminescent device in a hole transport layer and/or a light emitting layer as claimed.
Lee teaches that the inventive compounds of Formula 2, are suitable for use in hole transport layers or light emitting auxiliary layers of organic electroluminescent devices ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any specific compound within the scope of Formula 2, particularly in the hole transport layer or light emitting auxiliary layer as claimed, because Lee demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the compounds were known to be predictably suitable for use in the claimed layers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789