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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on December 20, 2019.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on April 2, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 14, drawn to an organic molecule in the reply filed on April 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 and 16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for producing an optoelectronic device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1 – 14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on September 15, 2022, October 14, 2024, and December 2, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
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.
Claims 1 – 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 recites definitions for variables and state that “Optionally one or more hydrogen atoms are independently substituted by R5.” The claims then define R5 as including hydrogen. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a hydrogen atom could be substituted, as this would result in a divalent hydrogen. It is also unclear what the structure of a hydrogen atom substituted by a hydrogen atom would be.
For examination purposes “a hydrogen atom… substituted by…” is interpreted as “a hydrogen atom being replaced by.”
Examiner recommends removing the clause and replacing with “which is optionally substituted by R5.”
Claims 2 – 14 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US20200176679A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, and 5, Jeong teaches:
An organic molecule comprising a structure of Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
234
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
( Jeong teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
182
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0046]). A specific compound taught by Jeong is compound 305
PNG
media_image3.png
348
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0059]), which does not contain substituents off of the phenyl groups as required by the claim. However, Jeong teaches compounds such as compound 251
PNG
media_image4.png
164
234
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0059]) which contains two tert-butyl groups on each of the phenyl rings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly substitute the phenyl rings of compound 305. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein RII, RIV, RVII, and RIX are all a C4 alkyl group, namely a tert-butyl group as required by claim 2 and RXI is a C6 alkyl group, namely a cyclohexyl group as required by claim 2 and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. This compound reads on Formula Ia in claim 5.)
Jeong includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jeong being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved service life, efficiency and stability in organic electroluminescent elements containing them (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 4 and 7, Jeong teaches:
A structure of Formula Ic
PNG
media_image5.png
242
294
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(In addition to compound 251 above, Jeong teaches compound 247
PNG
media_image6.png
150
228
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which contains an alternative bonding pattern for the phenyl substituents in which two methyl groups are provided on one of the phenyl substituents and one methyl group is provide on the other phenyl substituent instead of the tert-butyl groups. Therefore, it would have been similarly obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the phenyl rings of compound 305 with methyl groups. While the compound does not contain the third methyl group on the phenyl substituent as required by the Formula, Jeong teaches multiple methyl substituents and it would have been obvious to add a third substituent in the claimed location. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed structure wherein RII is a C1 alkyl group and RXI are is a C6 alkyl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The compound contains a methyl group in the RX position of Formula I as required by claim 4.)
Jeong includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jeong being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved service life, efficiency and stability in organic electroluminescent elements containing them (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 6, Jeong teaches:
A structure of Formula Ib
PNG
media_image7.png
288
288
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(In addition to compound 251 above, Jeong teaches compound 253
PNG
media_image8.png
224
346
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, which contains an alternative bonding pattern for the phenyl substituents in which one cyclohexyl group is provided on each of the phenyl substituents instead of the tert-butyl groups. Therefore, it would have been similarly obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the phenyl rings of compound 305 with cyclohexyl groups. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed structure wherein RVI and RXI are both a C6 alkyl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen.)
Jeong includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jeong being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved service life, efficiency and stability in organic electroluminescent elements containing them (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 8, Jeong teaches:
A structure of Formula Id
PNG
media_image9.png
248
318
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(In addition to compound 251 above, Jeong teaches compound 265
PNG
media_image10.png
154
226
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which contains an alternative bonding pattern for the phenyl substituents in which one phenyl group is provided on each of the phenyl substituents instead of the tert-butyl groups. Therefore, it would have been similarly obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the phenyl rings of compound 305 with phenyl groups. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed structure wherein RVI and RXI are both a C6 alkyl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed structure wherein RIII is a C6 aryl, RXI is a C6 alkyl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen.)
Jeong includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jeong being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved service life, efficiency and stability in organic electroluminescent elements containing them (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 9, Jeong teaches:
A structure of Formula Ie
PNG
media_image11.png
282
332
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(In addition to compound 251 above, Jeong teaches compound 277
PNG
media_image12.png
158
232
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, which contains an alternative bonding pattern for the phenyl substituents in which two phenyl groups are provided on one of the phenyl substituents and one phenyl substituent is provided on the other phenyl substituent instead of the tert-butyl groups. Therefore, it would have been similarly obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the phenyl rings of compound 305 with phenyl groups. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed structure wherein RIV is a C6 aryl group and RXI is a C6 alkyl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen.)
Jeong includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Jeong being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved service life, efficiency and stability in organic electroluminescent elements containing them (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 10, 11, and 13, Jeong teaches:
An optoelectronic device comprising the organic molecule configured to be a luminescent emitter, wherein the optoelectronic device is an organic light-emitting diode ([0017]: “Further, the present invention uses a compound represented by Formula 1 a dopant in order to provide an organic electroluminescent element which is excellent in light emission efficiency and service life characteristics.”)
As per claim 12, Jeong teaches:
A composition comprising the organic molecule as an emitter and/or host ([0060]: “The compound of Formula 1 of the present invention may be usefully used as a dopant material of a light emitting layer.”)
An emitter and/or a host material, which differs from the organic molecule ([0062]: “The aforementioned material for forming a light emitting layer may further include a material which is typically added when the organic compound is prepared in a form required to be used in forming a light emitting layer, for example, a host material, and the like.”)
As per claim 14, Jeong teaches:
The optoelectronic device comprising a substrate, an anode and a cathode, wherein the anode or the cathode is on the substrate and the light emitting layer comprises the organic molecule (In the Examples, as described in [0194], a device is prepared wherein a substrate is provided below an anode, an emission layer is provided and then a cathode is provided.)
Claims 1 – 3, 5, and 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thirion (WO2021013993A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, and 5, Thirion teaches:
An organic molecule comprising a structure of Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
234
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Thirion teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image13.png
218
302
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(Page 2, Paragraph 2). A specific compound taught by Thirion is compound
PNG
media_image14.png
162
198
media_image14.png
Greyscale
on Page 172, which does not contain the claimed RXI group. However, in Formula I, Thirion teaches that RV can be selected from an alkyl, aryl, or heteroaryl group (Page 4, Paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention replace the pyridine group with a phenyl group. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein RII, RIV, RVII, and RIX are all a C4 alkyl group, namely a tert-butyl group as required by claim 2, and RXI is a C6 aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 2 and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. This compound reads on Formula Ia in claim 5.)
Thirion includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Thirion being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of higher efficiencies and higher color purity (Page 1, Paragraph 5), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 8, Thirion teaches:
A structure of Formula Id
PNG
media_image9.png
248
318
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Another compound taught by Thirion is
PNG
media_image15.png
174
190
media_image15.png
Greyscale
on page 170, which does not contain the claimed RXI group. However, in Formula I, Thirion teaches that RV can be selected from an alkyl, aryl, or heteroaryl group (Page 4, Paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention replace the pyridine group with a phenyl group. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein RIII and RXI are both a C6 aryl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen.)
Thirion includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Thirion being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of higher efficiencies and higher color purity (Page 1, Paragraph 5), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 9, Thirion teaches:
A structure of Formula Ie
PNG
media_image11.png
282
332
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(Another compound taught by Thirion is
PNG
media_image16.png
150
198
media_image16.png
Greyscale
on page 170, which does not contain the claimed RXI group. However, in Formula I, Thirion teaches that RV can be selected from an alkyl, aryl, or heteroaryl group (Page 4, Paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention replace the pyridine group with a phenyl group. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein RII, RIV and RXI are all a C6 aryl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen.)
Thirion includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Thirion being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of higher efficiencies and higher color purity (Page 1, Paragraph 5), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 10, 11, and 13, Thirion teaches:
An optoelectronic device comprising the organic molecule configured to be a luminescent emitter, wherein the optoelectronic device is an organic light-emitting diode (Page 85, Paragraph 4: “A preferred embodiment relates to the use of an organic molecule according to the invention as a luminescent emitter in an optoelectronic device.”)
As per claim 12, Thirion teaches:
A composition comprising the organic molecule as an emitter and/or host, and an emitter and/or a host material, which differs from the organic molecule (Page 86, Paragraph 5: “A further aspect of the invention relates to a composition comprising or consisting of (a) at least one organic molecule according to the invention, in particular in the form of an emitter and/or a host, and (b) one or more emitter and/or host materials, which differ from the organic molecule according to the invention.”)
As per claim 14, Thirion teaches:
The optoelectronic device comprising a substrate, an anode and a cathode, wherein the anode or the cathode is on the substrate and the light emitting layer comprises the organic molecule (On Page 99, Paragraph 6, Thirion teaches a device structure that includes a substrate, with an anode on top, a light emitting layer, and a cathode layer.)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights