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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/13/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The compound disclosed on Pages 35-38 and 96-98 of the as-filed Specification appear to be illegible. Applicants are advised to amend these sections of the Specification with clear or legible images of the compounds.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites illegible compounds. Applicants are advised to amend the claim to recite clear or legible images of the compounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites illegible compounds. Applicants are advised to amend the claim to recite clear or legible images of the compounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites compounds 13 and 17:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
164
224
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
which render the scope of the claim indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 20 depends from claim 13, and claim 13 recites Formula 1 as:
PNG
media_image3.png
198
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where X3 is NR8, and R8 is a phenyl group. However, in the compounds above, R8 is a substituted phenyl, i.e. biphenyl or triphenyl which is excluded by claim 13.
It is noted that were Applicant to cancel Compounds 13 and 17 above, the remaining compound, Compound 1, would present issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 (d) for the following reasons. Compound 1 in claim 20 has the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
150
222
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
and Formula 1 in claim 13 only encompasses a single compound, thereby claim 20 would not limit the scope of the parent claim, i.e. Compound 1 in claim 20 is identical to the single compound encompassed by Formula 1 in claim 13.
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 of this title, 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:
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US 2020/0190115, cited on IDS filed on 10/18/2021, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘115).
Regarding claim 12, Hatakeyama ‘115 discloses the following organic light emitting device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image5.png
353
587
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 102 corresponds to the recited first electrode; layer 108 corresponds to the recited second electrode; layers 103 to 107 correspond to the recited organic layer; and layer 105 corresponds to the recited light emitting layer ([0144]). The positive electrode (102) and negative electrode (108) are formed from a metal such as aluminum (Al) or gold (Au) ([0152] and [0431]).
The light emitting layer (105) comprises the following compound ([0058] and Page 4 – Compound (1-1A):
PNG
media_image6.png
329
583
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Paragraph [0041] discloses that the diarylamino groups can be substituted by a C1-12 alkyl, e.g. a C2 alkyl ([0047]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 62 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed organic light emitting device nor can the claimed organic light emitting device be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed organic light emitting device and the organic light emitting device disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound an organic light emitting device which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 3, 4, and 13 are allowable over the “closest” prior art Hatakeyama et al (US 2020/0190115, cited on IDS filed on 10/18/2021, hereafter Hatakeyama ‘115) for the following reasons.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Hatakeyama ‘115 discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
329
583
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Paragraph [0041] discloses that the diarylamino groups can be substituted by a C1-12 alkyl. However, the reference does not disclose or suggest the criticality of a methyl group in an ortho position to the central nitrogen of a biphenylamino group as required by Formulas 2-1:
PNG
media_image8.png
106
222
media_image8.png
Greyscale
where Z1 and Z2 are methyl groups and R9 and R10 are hydrogen, especially in light of the data presented in the instant Specification. Specifically, Table 1 of the instant Specification demonstrates the criticality of the position of the methyl group, where Compound 1 (see Example 1, Pages 98 of the as-filed Specification), within the scope of the claims 1 and 13, i.e.:
PNG
media_image9.png
222
414
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
has improved efficiency and device life ratio (T95) as compared to a compound where the methyl group are para to the nitrogen of the diphenyl amine group, e.g. Comparative Example 2, utilizing Compound C2:
PNG
media_image10.png
282
528
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Given that Hatakeyama ‘115 does not disclose or suggest the criticality of the methyl group in terms of improved efficiency and device life ratio (T95), it is clear that the reference does not disclose or suggest the compound or an organic light emitting device comprising the compound as recited in the present claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of Applicants’ Remarks filed on 4/15/2026, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, and 4, as set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, see Paragraph 13 above indicating reasons why claims 1 and 13 are allowable.
Applicants argue that Hatakeyama ‘115 does not disclose the compounds as recited in claim 12 as amended. However, as discussed in the rejection above, the reference discloses the following compound ([0058] and Page 4 – Compound (1-1A):
PNG
media_image6.png
329
583
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
and Paragraph [0041] discloses that the diarylamino groups can be substituted by a C1-12 alkyl, e.g. a C2 alkyl ([0047]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 62 of the claims:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
374
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights