DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 11/26/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claim 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/29/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/29/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 10-12 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/29/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1) as applied above and in further view of Park (US 2005/0140275 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/29/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
The rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1) as applied above and in further view of Park et al. (US 2004/0046499 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/29/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
The rejection of Claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/29/25 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
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.
Claims 6, 7, 10-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1).
Senoo et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (electronic element) (OLED) comprising substrate (1), anode (2), hole-transporting layer (5), light-emitting layer (3), electron-transporting layer (6), and cathode (4) (Fig. 3) for the construction of full-color displays ([0009], [0012]); the hole-transporting, electron-transporting, and/or light-emitting layer comprises compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
100
160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0027]) where X = substituted or unsubstituted arylene group ([0028]); an embodiment is disclosed ([0063]):
PNG
media_image2.png
258
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 19) such that X = O, a’ = b’ = c-f = 0, L1-4 = single bond, R’ = R” = R”’ = R”” = C1 alkyl group (methyl), and Ar1-2 = C13 aryl group (9,9’-dimethylfluorenyl, which is not a “fluorenyl group” as defined by the Applicant in paragraph [0033] of the national phase publication) of any one of Applicant’s Formulae 2-12, 2-14, 2-16, and 2-18. However, Senoo et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on any of the recited formulae. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the compound as disclosed by Senoo et al. (above) such that the resulting compound is fully encompassed by any one of the Applicant’s Formulae 2-12, 2-14, 2-16, and 2-18. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the substitution position of one of the arylamino groups on the fused benzene ring (of the dibenzofuran), producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical or physical properties; further motivation exists, including the fact that the production merely involves the selection of one compound from a highly finite list as envisioned from the scope of Senoo et al.’s general formula (in regards to the substitution position of the arylamino group to “X”), thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Senoo et al. further discloses green emission for its devices ([0088], [0092], [0096], [0101], and [0103]). Notice that the lower half of the light-emitting layer or the upper half of the hole-transporting layer (comprising Senoo et al.’s inventive compound) can be defined as the “emitting auxiliary layer.”
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1) as applied above and in further view of Park (US 2005/0140275 A1).
Senoo et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (electronic element) of Claim 10 as shown above. Senoo et al. discloses the device (particularly with green emission) comprises the following layers (in this order): substrate (1), anode (2), hole-transporting layer (5), light-emitting layer (3), electron-transporting layer (6), and cathode (4) (Fig. 3) for the construction of full-color displays ([0009], [0012]); the hole-transporting, electron-transporting, and/or light-emitting layer (organic material layer) comprises its inventive compound ([0063]). Senoo et al. discloses that the device can undergo “various modifications and equivalent arrangements” ([0104]). However, Senoo et al. does not explicitly disclose the stacks as recited in the claims.
Park discloses an organic EL device (500) comprising a “plurality of stack units” separated by a charge generation layer all interposed between a pair of electrodes for the emission of white light (Abstract; Fig. 4; [0035]); each (EL) stack unit comprises hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting layer. Park et al. discloses such a multi-photo emission structure allows the emission of red, green, and blue colored lights, thereby enhancing color purity ([0036]). It would have been obvious to modify the organic EL device as disclosed by Senoo et al. in the manner as disclosed by Park (i.e., the addition of additional of EL units (such as red and blue) separated by charge generation layers). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Park, which discloses a stacked structure that allows for the emission of white color via the emission of separate red, green, and blue light, resulting in enhanced color purity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1) as applied above and in further view of Park et al. (US 2004/0046499 A1).
Senoo et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (electronic
element) of Claim 10 as shown above. However, Senoo et al. does not explicitly disclose a light efficiency enhancing layer.
Park et al. discloses the use of a cover layer having a high refractive index which enhances emissivity of an organic EL device (Abstract); the cover layer can be deposited on top surface of “light-emitting devices of various structures” ([0025]). It would have been obvious to deposit such a cover layer as disclosed by Park et al. on the surface of the organic EL device as disclosed by Senoo et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Park et al. which discloses that the existence of such a layer enhances emissivity of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
The closest prior art is provided by Senoo et al. (US 2003/0157364 A1), which discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
100
160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0027]); an embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
258
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 19). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Senoo et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses any of the specific compounds as recited in the claim, particularly in regards to the nature of the substituent groups attached to the core dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene ring.
Response to Arguments
15. The Applicant argues on page 12 that Senoo et al. fails to teach a compound wherein Ar1-2 is an “non-fluorenyl aryl”; the Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that “there is no sufficient guidance to encourage one skilled in the art” to produce the claimed compound. The Applicant has further argued on pages 14-15 for unpredictable results. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, note that in the cited compound as disclosed by Senoo et al., each of Ar1-2 corresponds to a 9,9’-dimethylfluorenyl group, not a fluorenyl group. A “fluorenyl group” as known in the art refers to an unsubstituted group; such a definition is further evidenced by the definition of a “fluorenyl group” as defined by the Applicant wherein all substituent groups (R, R’, and R”) equal hydrogen (see [0033] of the present national phase publication).
Secondly, notice that several motivations have been provided by the Office in the proposed modification to produce the Applicant’s claimed compound. The modification merely involves change in the substitution position of one of that arylamino groups on the fused benzene ring (of the dibenzofuran), producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical or physical properties. Due to the expectation that the production of the positional isomer is of such close structural similarity to the original compound of Senoo et al. that it would have had similar properties, it is the position of the Office that there is sufficient motivation to one of ordinary skill the art to make the claimed compound (see MPEP 211.09(I)-(II)). Moreover, further motivation exists, including the fact that the production merely involves the selection of one compound from a highly finite list as envisioned from the scope of Senoo et al.’s general formula (in regards to the substitution position of the arylamino group to “X”), thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Thirdly, the Office finds the data as presented by the Applicant unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Notice the rather broad scope of the Applicant’s formulae as recited in Claims 6 and 7, wherein, for instance, R1-6 each independently encompasses high order aryl and heterocyclic groups of up to 60 carbon atoms resulting in compounds with distinct chemical and physical properties imparting properties to organic electroluminescent (EL) devices which cannot be reasonably extrapolated from the Applicant’s data.
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 at 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786