DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 02/09/26.
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 Claims 1-4, 7-10, 14, 15, 18, and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (CN 109476597 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/14/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-15, 18, and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (WO 2020/159266 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/14/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 14, 15, and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2020/220942 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/14/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-4, 7-9, 13-15, 18, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buesing et al. (WO 2014/079527 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2015/0318484 A1 as then English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2014/079527 A1 (herein referred to as “Buesing et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Buesing et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0011]) where Ar1-2 = aryl or heteroaryl, n = 3-6, and Cbz = carbazole group ([0012]-[0014], [0018]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
446
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 10). However, Buesing et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant’s formula (1), particularly in regards to the connection point of the N-carbazolyl group on the benzene (ring C). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound 5 as disclosed by Buesing et al. (above) such that R31-38 = hydrogen, R21-24 = hydrogen, R11 = single bond bonded to *b, R12-15 = hydrogen, R2 = single bond bonded to *a, R1 = R3-5 = hydrogen, L1-2 = single bond (or phenylene), and Ar1-2 = unsubstituted aryl group having 12 ring carbon atoms (biphenyl) (or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl)) of Applicant’s formulae (1), (3), and (5). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in connection point of the N-carbazolyl group on the benzene (to an adjacent position), producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; further motivation exists, including the fact that the modification merely involves the selection of one possible embodiment selected from a highly finite list as envisioned from the scope of Buesing et al.’s general formula (i.e., in regards to the connection point of “Cbz” on “Ar1”), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Buesing et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays and the like comprising the following layers: anode, hole-injecting layer (first hole transporting layer), hole-transporting layer (second hole transporting layer), light-emitting layer, electron-transporting layer, electron-injecting layer, and cathode ([0090], [0132]); its inventive compounds comprise any of the hole-injecting, hole-transporting, light-emitting, and/or electron-blocking layer ([0088]). The light-emitting layer comprises a mixture of host and dopant materials, the latter includes phosphorescent and fluorescent compounds ([0092], [0094], [0100], [0142]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 10 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.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2015/0318484 A1 as then English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2014/079527 A1 (herein referred to as “Buesing et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
The closest prior art is provided by Buesing et al., which discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0011]) where Ar1-2 = aryl or heteroaryl, n = 3-6, and Cbz = carbazole group ([0012]-[0014], [0018]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
446
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 10). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Buesing et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses any of the compounds as recited in Claim 5, particularly in regards to the nature of R11-15 of Applicant’s formula (1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-14 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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 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
Prosecution Insights