DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (WO 2020/045924 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 04/14/26 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, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2020/045924 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2022/0017544 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2020/045924 A1 (herein referred to as “Yoon et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Yoon et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
190
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0009]) where L1-2 = independently direct bond (among others) and B1-2 = independently -NR6R7 (where R6-7 = independently substituted or unsubstituted aryl and heteroaryl (among others)) ([0015]-[0017]); “substituted or unsubstituted” means being unsubstituted or substituted with “one or more substituents” selected from deuterium, alkyl group, and aryl group (among others) ([0027]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
366
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 29) Q1 = substituted C12 heteroaryl group (substituted dibenzofuran), R1-2 = (hydrogen or) unsubstituted C1-30 alkyl group which are bonded to each other to form an alicyclic polycyclic ring, X = O, and Ar1-2 = substituted C6 aryl group (substituted phenyl) or Applicant’s Structural Formula 1 (with R3 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl)) of Applicant’s Formula A. However, Yoon et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Structural Formula 1, particularly in regards to the nature of the (R4)l group. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the compound as disclosed by Yoon et al. (above) such that l = any integer of 1-4 and R4 = deuterium of Applicant’s Structural Formula 1. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the exchange of one atom (hydrogen) for a functional equivalent (deuterium) selected from a highly finite list which is taught by Yoon et al. as a viable alternative to that of hydrogen and easily envisioned from the scope of its general formula; further motivation exists, as deuterium is merely an isotopic derivative of hydrogen and thus can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Yoon et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays (with “a wide viewing angle”) comprising the following layers ([0003], [0007], [0098]): substrate (1), anode (2), hole-injecting layer (5), hole-transporting layer (6) (inherently electron-blocking), light-emitting layer (7), electron-transporting layer (8), and cathode (4) (Fig. 2; [0023]). Its inventive compounds serve as material comprising the hole-injecting, hole-transporting, and/or light-emitting layer ([0021], [0143]). Yoon et al. discloses that the organic layers are formed via methods such as solution coating including spin coating ([0084]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2022/0017544 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2020/045924 A1 (herein referred to as “Yoon 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 Yoon et al. (WO 2020/045924 A1), which discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image3.png
192
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0009]) where Y = direct bond, O, or S ([0011]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
366
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 29). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Yoon et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses any of the compounds as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the nature of the core heterocyclic group and/or the nature of the arylamino substituent group(s).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments on pages 20-24 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
10. 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