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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
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 11 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 11 allows that X is CR’R’’, a scope outside 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et al (US 2010/0072887) (Kwong).
In reference to claims 1-10, 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 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 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
Prosecution Insights