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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR 2020/0088704) (Lee).
In reference to claims 1-2, 6-9, and 23, Lee teaches a compound 28 as shown below that reads on the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1 wherein R21 to R28 are each deuterium, R11 to R14 are each deuterium, L1 is a fully deuterated phenylene, L2 and L3 are each a deuterated phenylene, Ar1 is fully deuterated naphthyl and Ar2 is fully deuterated phenanthrene.
For Claim 2: Reads on wherein naphthyl and phenanthryl each comprise a benzene.
For Claim 6: Reads on L1 to L3 as fully deuterated.
For Claim 7: Reads on 100% deuteration.
For Claim 8: Reads on 100% deuteration.
For Claim 9: Reads on 10% or more.
For Claim 23: Reads on a material.
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 25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 2020/0088704) (Lee).
In reference to claims 27 and 29, Lee teaches the compound 28 as shown above for claim 1 and further teaches it is used in an organic electroluminescent as a material in an auxiliary hole transporting layer with additional hole transport layer materials wherein the device further includes an anode, cathode and emitting layer.
While Lee does not exemplify the claimed device, it teaches such a use and it would have been obvious to have used them in the taught application.
In reference to claim 25, Lee teaches the device as described for claim 29 that comprises a compound of Lee and is open to the inclusion of additional compounds of Lee (e.g. compound 9) that reads on the claimed mixture of materials.
While Lee does not exemplify the claimed mixture, it teaches such a use and it would have been obvious to have used them in the taught application.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claim 34 to 37 are drawn to compounds of formula 1 with specific substituents Ar1 or Ar2 or specific structures. A search of the prior art did not identify these materials.
The closest prior art identified corresponds to Lee (KR 2020/0088704). Lee teaches similar compounds such as compound 28 shown below. However, Lee requires the phenanthrene substituent whereas the instant claims 34 to 37 do not allow for a phenanthrene as required by Lee. Neither Lee nor the prior art as a whole provide motivation to the ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the compounds of Lee to arrive at those instantly claimed.
Claims 34 to 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights