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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on July 29, 2026.
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 15 and 16 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for producing an optoelectronic device, there being no allowable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. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 2, 2026.
Claims 1 – 14 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed July 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of the claims 1 – 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s statement of common ownership, filed July 29, 2026, caused the disqualification of Thirion as prior art. The rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5, and 8 – 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 limits the definition of RXI to a scope not taught or suggested by the cited references. Applicant further argues that the rejection relies on a hypothetical compound constructed by selectively combining individual substituents from a broad generic disclosure of Jeong and that there is no explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill would have selected and combined the particular substituents. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office submits a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Office action mailed April 30, 2026 as the prior art renders obviousness and teaches each required component of the instant claims. Each specific component of claimed compounds is discussed and addressed in the rejection. Applicant sets forth a chemical formula which encompasses a large number of compounds where each variable is selected from many defined possibilities. Applicant does not claim merely a single species, but a large number of compounds according to Formula I. Similarly, Jeong sets forth a chemical structural formula with disclosed and defined variable groups and Jeong is analogous art. Just as applicant sets forth that one of ordinary skill in the art could form compounds from a disclosed, broadly defined chemical formula including compounds not expressly set forth as example compounds, the Office submits one of the same skill in the art would know how to make compounds from a chemical structural formula teaching in Jeong. Jeong’s teachings suggest that each derivative disclosed within the expressly defined formula is predictably functional for use in an EL device as there is no teaching away from any of the compounds within the defined formula. Per MPEP 2123, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).” Applicant argues the rejection does not articulate a rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would navigate the vast array of possible compounds encompassed by Jeong so as to arrive at a compound of Formula I of the instant application. In response, "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).”
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. Compound 305 teaches a cyclohexyl group in the R2 position of Formula 1 in Jeong, which corresponds to the claimed RXI position in Formula I. However, in the definitions for R2, Jeong teaches that the group may be a hydrogen or an alkyl group ([0047]). Jeong further teaches compounds such as compound 497
PNG
media_image5.png
210
308
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, where the R2 position is a hydrogen. 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 as per compound 251 and to replace the cyclohexyl group of compound 305 with a hydrogen atom as per compound 497. 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 hydrogen 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_image6.png
242
294
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(In addition to compound 251 above, Jeong teaches compound 247
PNG
media_image7.png
150
228
media_image7.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_image8.png
288
288
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(In addition to compound 251 above, Jeong teaches compound 253
PNG
media_image9.png
224
346
media_image9.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_image10.png
248
318
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(In addition to compound 251 above, Jeong teaches compound 265
PNG
media_image11.png
154
226
media_image11.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_image12.png
282
332
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(In addition to compound 251 above, Jeong teaches compound 277
PNG
media_image13.png
158
232
media_image13.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.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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