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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 includes compound C-507 which comprises an Ar1 or Ar2 that is a diarylamino substituted with alkyl groups and is not within the scope of claim 1 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et al (US 2010/0072887) (Kwong).
In reference to claims 12 and 4-10, Kwong teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an organic layer between an anode and cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a dibenzoselenophene of the formula as shown below for use as a hole transport layer (Kwong [0016]; [0036]; [0045])
PNG
media_image1.png
146
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein R1 is hydrogen, one of Ar is benzene and one of Ar is naphthalene (Kwong [0036]; [0037]).
Kwong discloses the dibenzoselenophene compound that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein R1 is hydrogen, one of Ar is benzene and one of Ar is naphthalene. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Kwong are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the dibenzoselenophene compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the dibenzoselenophene compound to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Kwong and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al (US 2016/0351820) (Shin) in view of Kwong et al (US 2010/0072887) (Kwong).
In reference to claim 11, Shin teaches a compound of formula (D) as shown below for use in an organic electronic device [0016] [0017])
PNG
media_image2.png
268
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula (2), X is O or S, each other R is hydrogen, Ar1 is aryl and Ar3 is a heteroaryl group (Shin [0055] [0035] to [0041]).
Shin discloses the compound of formula (2) that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein in the formula (2), X is O or S, each other R is hydrogen, Ar1 is aryl and Ar3 is a heteroaryl group. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Shin are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula (2) to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Shin and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Shin does not expressly teach that the heteroaryl group is a dibenzoselephene as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Kwong teaches, in analogous art, organoselenium compounds such as dibenzoselenophene compounds substituted with arylamine groups of the formula as shown below and further teaches that hosts containing dibenzoselenophene are excellent host and enhancement layer materials for OLEDs (Kwong p. 6; [0069] [0070]).
PNG
media_image1.png
146
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using dibenzoselenophene hosts as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the dibenzoselenophene as described by Kwong in order to provide an excellent host material and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103 over Kwong et al, Applicant argues that Kwong discloses a nearly infinte number of possible compounds and does not provide the required motivation or reasonable expectation that a skilled artisan would have selected the specific claimed species or narrow subgenus form the vast universe of disclosed possibilities.
This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. Initially, Applicant’s genus of formula 1 is also nearly infinite and arguably broader than the formula of Kwong. Furthermore, arriving at a species of the Applicant’s most specific claim, claim 7, requires only selection of aryl groups as benzene and naphthalene and other groups to be selected as hydrogen (e.g. not substituted). In the many examples of Kwong, benzene and naphthalene are frequently selected when an aromatic group is present, they are also among a short list of preferred aromatic groups (Kwong [0037]). Furthermore, most of the examples of dibenzoselenophene groups include hydrogen at many or all of the positions corresponding to R1 of Kwong’s formula. That is, the selections required to arrive at a specifically claimed species are among the most common selections contemplated by Kwong and are from a finite list of preferred groups.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims eliminate the possibility of Ar1 and/or Ar2 being a mono- or di- (C6-C30)arylamino substituted with a (C10C30)alkyl(s). However, the claims were not rejected over a compound with such a group, and this amendment does not overcome the rejection of record.
Concerning the outstanding rejection of claim 11 over Shin in view of Kwong, Applicant does not add any additional arguments but points to previous arguments concerning Kwong. Therefore, those arguments are not convincing for the same reasons discussed herein above.
Conclusion
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.
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 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
