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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are currently pending. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 6 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-14 which were previously allowed, are now rejected due to the discovery of new art..
The indicated allowability of claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-14 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-3, 10, 14, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tasaki et al. (WO 2019/194298 A1 ) citations from USPGPUB 2021/0028365 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tasaki et al. teach the compounds represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
117
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
( see [0548]) meets the limitation of formula 1 wherein the compound of formula 1 comprises at least a dibenzofuran structure, A2 is unsubstituted dibenzofuran, p is 1, A4 is unsubstituted C6-C30 aromatic hydrocarbon, n is 1, B2 is unsubstituted C6-C30 aromatic hydrocarbon, and R’s are hydrogen as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Tasaki et al. teach the compounds represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
94
115
media_image2.png
Greyscale
( see [0548]) meets the limitation of formula 1 wherein the compound of formula 1 comprises at least a dibenzofuran structure or dibenzothiophene , A1 and A2 are unsubstituted dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene, o and m are 1, A3 and B1 are unsubstituted C6-C30 aromatic hydrocarbon, and R’s are hydrogen as instantly claimed in claim 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 3, Tasaki et al. teach an organic light-emitting device ( abstract, claims and figures) comprising a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and a light emitting layer ( organic layer; 0421-0421 & 0431]) comprising the compound meeting the limitation of formula (1)( [0548] and examples ).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Tasaki et al. teach the light-emitting layer further comprises a compound represented by formula (A-1):
PNG
media_image3.png
150
385
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0613-0626], more specifically formula A-1-1:
PNG
media_image4.png
172
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation the compound of formula A-1 or formula A-2 as instantly claimed in claims 10 and 14.
Regarding claim 15, Tasaki et al. teach an organic light-emitting device ( abstract, claims and figures) comprising a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and a light emitting layer ( organic layer; 0421-0421 & 0431]) comprising the compound meeting the limitation of formula (1)( [0548] and examples i.e. compound 3BH-3 [01090]:
PNG
media_image5.png
219
292
media_image5.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 94 as well as
PNG
media_image2.png
94
115
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in [0548] meeting the limitation of formula 41 as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 21, Tasaki et al. teach the light-emitting layer further comprises a compound represented by formula (A-1):
PNG
media_image3.png
150
385
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0613-0626], more specifically formula A-1-1:
PNG
media_image4.png
172
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation the compound of formula A-1 or formula A-2 as instantly claimed in claim 21.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagao et al. (WO 2010/001817 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Nagao et al. recites an organic light-emitting device ( see abstract, claims , figures and examples) comprising a first electrode ( anode electrode) , a second electrode (cathode) facing the first electrode; and a light emitting layer interposed between the first and second electrodes, wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a compound selected from the compounds represented by the following [Formula 1] to [Formula 92] ,[Formula 94] to [Formula 100] , and [Formula 102] to [Formula 121] ( see following Formulas:
PNG
media_image6.png
125
175
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on page 39 in [0085] meeting the limitation of [Formula 107] as recited by the instant claims.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (WO 2019/194298 A1 ) citations from USPGPUB 2021/0028365 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (KR 10-2094830 B1; citations from USPGPUB 2020/0172558 A1).
Regarding 4-6, 12 and 16-18, Tasaki et al. do not explicitly recite the light-emitting layer further comprises a compound represented by the following [Formula A-1] or [A-2] as recited by claims 4 and 16 or [Formula A-3] or [FormulaA-4] as recited by claims 5 and 17 or [Formulas A-5] or [Formula A-6] as recited by claims 6 and 18. However, Tasaki et al. recognize that light-emitting layer may include additional components ( see examples). Nonetheless, the examiner has added Joo et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include a compound represented by the following [Formula A-1] or [A-2] in view of providing a device with high efficiency [0006] and improving the low driving voltage [0003]( See a compound represented by Formula A-3 [0016-0017]:
PNG
media_image7.png
159
312
media_image7.png
Greyscale
includes compound 1 or compound 117] OLED display having a light-emitting layer ( claims 2 and 5-6, abstract, and examples). Compound 1 of Joo et al. is the same as the compound of chemical formula A-1 in claim 16 and chemical formula A-3 in claim 17 wherein: X is B; Y is O or N-R1; z is CR; R is hydrogen; and Q1 to Q3 and R1 are unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon, and the compound of chemical formula Al in claim 12. In addition, compound 117 of Joo et al. is the same as the compound of chemical formula A-2 in claim 16 and chemical formula A-6 in claim 18 wherein: X is B; Y is O or N-R1; z is CR; R is hydrogen; Q1, Q3 and R1 are unsubstituted C6 aromatic hydrocarbon; and Q2 is an unsubstituted C8 aromatic heterocycle (benzofuranyl).
Both Tasaki et al. and Joo et al. are analogous art in organic emitting light device art. Therefore, at the time of the invention a person skilled in the art would modify the light emitting layer of Tasaki et al. to include the compounds recited by Joo et al. in view aiding in providing a device with high efficiency and improving the low driving voltage
Claim(s) 7-9, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (WO 2019/194298 A1 ) citations from USPGPUB 2021/0028365 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. ( WO 2020-009467 A1).
Regarding claims 7-9, 13 and 19-20, Tasaki et al. do not explicitly disclose a light-emitting layer comprises a compound of chemical formula B as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Kim et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the organic light emitting device ( see abstract, claims and examples) in which a light-emitting layer comprises a compound represented by chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image8.png
265
394
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein
PNG
media_image9.png
103
156
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[0319] and/or
PNG
media_image10.png
145
166
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[0353] is included as a specific compound of the compound of chemical formula 1, and the organic layer can comprises the compound represented by chemical formula 1 as a dopant, and an organic compound such as anthracene based compound as a host ( see examples and claims). The first specific compound of Kim et al. is the same as the compound of chemical formula B in claim 7 wherein: X is B, Y is N-R6; Q1 and Q2 are a substituted C6 aryl group, Cy1 is substituted with C1 alkyl, and is each linked to a nitrogen atom and the aromatic carbon atom in ring Q1 so as to form a fused ring; Cy2 forms a saturated hydrocarbon ring added to Cy1, and is a C4 alkylene group excluding the carbon atoms contained in Cy1; and Q3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, and the compound of chemical formula B5 in claim 13.
In addition, the second specific compound of Kim et al. is the same as the compound of chemical formula B in claim 8 wherein: X is B; Y is N-R6; Q1 and Q2 are a substituted C6 aryl group; Cy1 is substituted with an C1 alkyl, and is each linked to a nitrogen atom and the aromatic carbon atom in ring Q1 so as to form a fused ring; Cy2 forms a saturated hydrocarbon ring added to Cy1, and is a C4 alkylene group excluding the carbon atoms contained in Cy1; Q3 is a C6 aryl group to which an aryl amino group represented by structural formula 1 is bonded; and Ar11 and Ar12 are an unsubstituted C6 aryl group.
Further regards to claims 9 and 20, neither Kim et al. nor Tasaki et al. specifically teach the compound of Formula B is represented by Formula B-1 as instantly claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art that a person in the art could easily derived from the feature disclosed in Kim et al. wherein in chemical formula 103 in paragraph [0255]:
PNG
media_image11.png
300
425
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, Ar1 and Ar4 can be an unsubstituted alkyl group and the like; Ar2 and Ar3 can be bonded to each other so as to form an unsubstituted ring, and the like; n2, n3 and n12 can be an integer of 0-3; Al can be hydrogen, an unsubstituted aryl group or the like; A2 can be hydrogen or the like; and Ar103 and Ar104 can be an unsubstituted aryl group (see claims). 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) .
Both Tasaki et al. and Kim et al. are analogous art in organic emitting light device art. Therefore, at the time of the invention a person skilled in the art would modify the light emitting layer of Tasaki et al. to include the compounds recited by Kim et al. by substituting compound 2 of Tasaki et al. for the compound of Kim et al. in view aiding in improving the light emitting layer properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights