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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on April 28, 2026.
Claims 1 – 11 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 17 has been added.
Claim 16 has been canceled.
Claims 1 – 15 and 17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh in view of Shin as set forth in the office action filed March 25, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh in view of Shin and further in view of Parham as set forth in the office action filed March 25, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 5, 7 – 10, 12 – 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh as set forth in the office action filed March 25, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 15 and 17 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.
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 – 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (KR20190007968A, using US20200136057A1 as the official English Language translation) in view of Shin (KR20120029751A, using the previously provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 11 and 17, Ryu teaches:
A composition for an organic optoelectronic device comprising a first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
334
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ryu teaches a composition comprising a first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 -1
PNG
media_image2.png
166
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0057]). A particular compound within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 taught by Ryu is compound A-8
PNG
media_image3.png
294
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0086]). Compound A-8 does not contain a heteroaryl group in the position corresponding to Ar1 in claim 1. However, Ryu teaches that Z1 in Chemical Formula 1-1 can be selected from among a phenyl group or a dibenzofuran group ([0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Compound A-8 to include a dibenzofuran group off of the indologroup instead of the shown phenyl group. These compounds are a structural isomer of the claimed Formula that differs in the bonding of the indolo group to the dibenzofuran group in the polycyclic ring system. However, in analogous art, Shin teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
152
172
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Page 4), which shows that the structural isomers of indolodibenzofuran and indolodibenzothiophene are functionally equivalent. 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 modify the bonding of the indolo group to the dibenzofuran group in the compound of Ryu and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula. The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state “A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities.” An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c). and “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X is O; Z1 and Z2 are N and Z3 are CRa; all R groups are hydrogen; L1 to L4 are all single bonds; Ar1 is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group, namely a dibenzofuranyl group as required by claim 2; Ar2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 3, represented by
PNG
media_image5.png
50
76
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 4 and
PNG
media_image6.png
46
58
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 5 and Ar3 is an unsubstituted C12 arylene group, namely a biphenyl group as required by claim 3, represented by
PNG
media_image7.png
52
110
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 4 and
PNG
media_image8.png
58
82
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 5. The modified compound is the same as compound A-184
PNG
media_image9.png
140
118
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 6.)
Comprising a second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image10.png
216
372
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(Ryu teaches that the composition comprises a second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image11.png
304
336
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0013]). A particular compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 taught by Ryu is compound C-2
PNG
media_image12.png
288
310
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0096]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar4 and Ar5 are an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 8; L5 is a single bond and L6 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a phenylene group as required by claim 8; all R groups are hydrogen and m is an integer of 0. This compound is represented by Chemical Formula 2-8 in claim 7. The L-Ar groups are represented by
PNG
media_image13.png
42
48
media_image13.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image14.png
36
64
media_image14.png
Greyscale
in claim 9 and
PNG
media_image15.png
30
36
media_image15.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image16.png
44
64
media_image16.png
Greyscale
in claim 10. This compound is the same as compound C-23 in claim 11.
Ryu includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ryu 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 an organic optoelectronic diode having high efficiency and long life-span ([0009]), 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 12, Ryu teaches:
An organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other and a at least one organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer includes a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer includes the composition for an organic optoelectronic device ([0021]: “According to another embodiment, an organic optoelectronic diode includes an anode and a cathode facing each other and at least one organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer includes the aforementioned composition for an organic optoelectronic diode.”)
As per claim 13, Ryu teaches:
Wherein the composition for an organic optoelectronic device is includes as a phosphorescent host of the light emitting layer ([0055]: “The composition for the organic optoelectronic diode according to the present invention uses an electron transporting host having an indolodibenzofuran (or indolodibenzothiophene) structure and a hole transporting host having a structure in which two carbazoles are linked as a phosphorescence light emitting material.”)
As per claim 14, Ryu teaches:
Wherein the composition for an organic optoelectronic device includes the first compound and the second compound in a weight ratio of 20:80 to 50:50 ([0098: “For example the first compound for the organic optoelectronic diode and the second compound for the organic optoelectronic diode may be included in a range of about 3:7.”)
As per claim 15, Ryu teaches:
A display device comprising the organic optoelectronic device ([0022]: “According to another embodiment, a display device including the organic optoelectronic diode is provided.”)
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