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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 3/27/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. A new prior art rejection appears below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung et al. (US 2006/0115674).
Claims 1 and 2: Hung et al. teaches the compounds
PNG
media_image1.png
148
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
106
186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragrpah 0020). The first compound is referred to as compound 2 as shown in paragrpah 0027. Compound 2 is employed in an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transport region, an emission layer comprising compound 2 as a host and a dopant, an electron transport region, and a cathode. The employment of compound 2 as a host material anticipates the device limitations of claim 1. Further, compouind 2 anticipates Formula 1 with each of Ar1 and Ar2 and each of Ar3 and Ar4 being bonded together to form a ring which anticipates condition (v) of claim 1. Compound 2 also anticiaptes Formula 1-1 of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 4: For claims 3 and 4, the second compound shown above is relied upon. The employment of any one of the explicitly taught compounds of Hung et al. as taught in paragraph 0020 in the manner exemplified in the device example is at once enviaged. Preparing a device comprising the second compound above satisfies the device limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 and the structural limitaitons of Formula 2 of claim 3 and Formula 2-1 of claim 4 with Ar11 and Ar13 being equal to unsubstituted phenyl groups and R1-R5 and R11-R15 being equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claims 6 and 8: In the second compound shown in claim 1 above, each of Ar1-Ar4 are the same and are all equal to A-1, thereby anticipating claims 6 and 8.
Claim 11: The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 above are wholly incorporated into the rejection of claim 11. The second compound shown in claim 1 above is identical to compound 1 of claim 11, thereby anticipating claim 11.
Claims 12 and 13: The rejection of claim 1 above as it pertains to the two compounds described therein are wholly incorporated into the rejection of claims 12 and 13. The two compounds taught by Hung et al. as described in claim 1 anticipate all of the structural limitations of Formula 1 of claim 12 and Formula 1-1 of claim 13.
Claim 14: Compound 2, which is the first compound shown in claim 1 above, anticipates Formula 2 of claim 14 with Ar11 and Ar13 being bonded to an adjacent group to form a ring which satisfies condition (v) of claim 14.
Claim 15: Compound 2 as shown in claim 1 above, anticipates formula 2-1 of claim 15 with R1 and R11 being bonded to an adjacent group to form a ring, and all other R groups being equal to hydrogen atoms.
Claim 19: In the second compound recited in claim 1 above, Ar1 and Ar3 are the same and Ar2 and Ar4 are the same, thereby anticipating claim 19.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 2018/0047919).
Jung et al. teaches silyl group containing compounds represented by Formula 1 (abstract). Jung et al. further teaches specific compounds 1 to 432 as taught in paragraph 0292. Several of these explicitly taught compounds anticipate Formula 1 of claim 1. As one example, compound 27, which has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
128
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 34) satisfies Formula 1 of claim 1 with each of Ar1 and Ar2 and each of Ar3 and Ar4 being joined together to form a ring.
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 of this title, 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.
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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0047919).
Jung et al. teaches silyl group containing compounds represented by Formula 1 (abstract). Jung et al. further teaches specific compounds 1 to 432 as taught in paragraph 0292. Several of these explicitly taught compounds satisfy all of the structural limitations of Formula 1 of claim 1. As one example, compound 27, which has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
128
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 34) satisfies Formula 1 of claim 1 with each of Ar1 and Ar2 and each of Ar3 and Ar4 being joined together to form a ring. Additionally, Jung et al. teaches organic light-emitting devices, which in some embodiments comprises an anode, a hole transport region comprising a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant, an electron transport region, and a cathode. Jung et al. teaches that the silyl group containing compound may be employed in the hole transport region such as in the hole transport layer or in the electron blocking layer (paragraphs 0314-0315). The overall teachings of Jung et al. render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art the preparation of an organic light emitting device where the silyl group containing compounds of Jung et al., which includes those which satisfy Formula 1, are employed in the hole transport region, thereby satisfying the device limitations of claims 9 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 16, 17, and 20 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. Compounds which satisfy Formulae 2-2A or 2-2B as recited in claims 5 and 12 are not taught or suggested by the prior art. Additionally, compounds where at least one of Ar1-Ar4 is selected from one of structures A-2 through A-6 as required by claim 17 is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Last, the specific compounds recited in claim 20 are not taught or suggested by the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights