DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received November 5, 2026. Claims 1 and 3 were amended. Claims 2 and 4-8 are cancelled claims. Claims 1, 3, and 9-14 are pending.
Previous rejections over now cancelled claims 2 and 4-8 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki et al. (WO 2019/098234 A1 – where family equivalent document US 2020/0335703 A1 was used as the English language translation document in the citations) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment received November 5, 2025.
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US 2012/0146008 A1) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment received November 5, 2025.
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 1, 3, and 9-14 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to amended claim 1, it is noted that m and n are now recited as zero, but the claim is confusing and/or indefinite in that L1 and L2 remain present within the structure yet are not defined. The claim language should be clarified with supported language to explain the meaning of L1 and L2 as single bond as m and n are now each zero.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (WO 2019/098234 A1 – note that family equivalent document US 2020/0335703 A1 has been used as the English language translation document in the below citations).
Regarding compound claims 1 and 3, Mochizuki et al. teaches arylamine compounds according to formula (1) (see abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
204
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In the formula, L1 may be phenyl bonding in a meta position (see par. 35 with bonding line into center of ring encompassing meta position bonding), “n” may be 1 per the instant R4-R7 ring (see abstract), Ar3 and Ar4 may be aromatic hydrocarbon per instant Ar3 and Ar4 (see abstract) that includes at least phenyl group (see par. 82), R1 and R3 may be hydrogen (see abstract) and R2 may be aromatic hydrocarbon that includes at least phenyl group (see par. 82), Ar1 and Ar2 may be substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group per instant groups Ar1 and Ar2 that include at least phenyl (see par. 82) that may be substituted with at least a naphthyl (see par. 83). Regarding claim 3, phenyl as Ar3, Ar4, and R2 are not required to be substituted (see abstract and par. 82). While Mochizuki et al. does not appear to exemplify a formula (1) compound where the combination of variables and groups were selected the same as recited (including specific selection of at least one naphthyl as a substituent), Mochizuki et al. clearly teaches definitions for the formula that are the same as recited. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form a compound of the reference as discussed above wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a formula (1) compound for a light emitting device within the disclosure of Mochizuki et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Mochizuki et al. teaches using compounds of general formula (1) in a layer of a light emitting device between an anode and a cathode (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any formula 1 compound for use in a layer of the taught device structure, because the formula 1 compounds are taught for the purpose of an organic layer. One would expect to achieve an operational, layered device structure using a formula 1 compound as discussed above with respect to claim 1 with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 10-13, the teaching of a formula 1 compound in a layer between an anode and a cathode meets the recited device layer structure limitations. Furthermore, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied on (see In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 14, a device may be used within electronic devices such as home appliances (see par. 291).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The anticipation rejections were overcome by the amendments, but the office submits Mochizuki et al. renders obvious compounds as claimed. A reference is not limited to only example embodiments. Applicant argues compounds #59, 60 and 132-136 of the specification are superior to compound #58 lacking a naphthyl substituent group. Compounds #132-136 are not deemed directly comparable to #58, because #132-136 also differ by requiring a terphenyl group. Compounds #59 and #60 are deemed directly comparable to #58 as the only difference is the phenyl-naphthyl group versus a biphenyl group (reproduced here):
PNG
media_image2.png
178
146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(#59 spec. page 25)
PNG
media_image3.png
170
142
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(#60 – spec. page 26)
Compared to:
PNG
media_image4.png
162
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(#58 spec. page 24).
The lifetime values for devices having #59 and #60 do appear to show superior lifetime performance to a device with compound #58 (lifetimes 311 and 365 versus 282 – see instant spec. Table 3 at par. 213 starting at page 69). The recited compounds are not limited to only the features of compounds #59 and #60 and accordingly, the examples are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claimed subject matter. The examples relied on by applicant as evidence of unexpected results do not provide an adequate basis to support a conclusion that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claims will behave in the same manner, and therefore, the evidence is not persuasive of nonobviousness because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. (See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer 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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786