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 .
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are currently pending. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claims 1, 5, 6 and 12-14 have been amended. Claims 15-21 have been added as new.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the terms “ The present invention relates to:” should be deleted. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 contains repeated claim language “ wherein the compound of [Formula 1] comprises at least one of dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene , and wherein the compound of [Formula 1] comprises at least one dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene.” Applicant should delete “wherein the compound of [Formula 1] comprises at least one of dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Instant claim 6 recites “ The organic light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the compound of [Formula A-1] or [Formula A-2]”; however, there is no positive recitation of a compound of Formula [A-1] or [Formula A-2] in claim 3 or claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests amending claim 6 to depend from claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of “ wherein the compound of [Formula 1] is represented by the following [Formula I-1]:…wherein m and n are each independently an integer from 0 to 1…”, which does not further limit independent claim 1. Claim 1 requires “A compound represented by the following [Formula 1]: … wherein m, n, o, p are each independently an integer from 0 to 1, with the proviso that m+n+o+p is an integer from 2 to 3. Therefore, instant claim 2 must recite that either m or n be an integer of 1 to be within the claim scope of 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (WO 2019221545 A1; citations from USPGPUB 2021-0066619 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Choi et al. teach an organic light-emitting device (see abstract, claims, paragraphs [007-0015], examples and figures) comprising: a first electrode, a second electrode provided so as to be opposite to the first electrode; and an organic material layers including a light-emitting layer ,provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the emitting layer comprises a compound represented by chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
235
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a compound represented by chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
153
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and indicates that the compound of chemical formula 1 includes compound 28-1 or 28-9:
PNG
media_image3.png
529
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0155] and the compound of chemical formula 2 includes compound BD-1:
PNG
media_image4.png
293
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0095]. Compounds 28-1 and 28-9 of Choi et al. is the same as the compounds of Formula [122] and Formula [123]. Also, compound BD-1 of Choi et al. is the same as the compound of chemical formula C in claim 21 wherein Y is N-R9; Q1, Q2, and R9 are C6 aromatic hydrocarbon substituted with t-butyl; and Q3 is C5 aromatic hydrocarbon substituted with diarylamine.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cha et al. (WO 2020/231242 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Cha 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] and [Formula 94] to [Formula 123] ( see following Formulas:
PNG
media_image5.png
175
151
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on page 44 meeting the limitation of [Formula 97]
PNG
media_image6.png
245
352
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as recited by the instant claims or
PNG
media_image7.png
155
187
media_image7.png
Greyscale
on page 46 meeting the limitation of [Formula 101]
PNG
media_image8.png
253
295
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2019221545 A1; citations from USPGPUB 2021-0066619 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (KR 10-2094830 B1; citations from USPGPUB 2020/0172558 A1).
Regarding 16-18, Choi 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 claim 16 or [Formula A-3] or [FormulaA-4] as recited by claim 17 or [Formulas A-5] or [Formula A-6] as recited by claim 18. However, Choi et al. recognize that light-emitting layer may include additional components ( see examples) and the organic light emitting device having properties of low driving voltage [0006]. 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_image9.png
159
312
media_image9.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 Choi 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 Choi 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) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2019221545 A1; citations from USPGPUB 2021-0066619 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. ( WO 2020-009467 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Choi et al. do not explicitly disclose a light-emitting layer comprises a compound of chemical formula B as instantly claimed. However, Choi et al. recognize that compound represented by chemical formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
153
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
( claims) ,Ra is bonded to Cy1 each other so as to be able to form a substituted ring, and Rb is bonded to Cy2 each other so as to be able to form a substituted ring. 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_image10.png
265
394
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein
PNG
media_image11.png
103
156
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[0319] and/or
PNG
media_image12.png
145
166
media_image12.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 claim 20, neither Kim et al. nor Choi 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_image13.png
300
425
media_image13.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 Choi 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 Choi et al. to include the compounds recited by Kim et al. by substituting compound 2 of Choi et al. for the compound of Kim et al. in view aiding in improving the light emitting layer properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-14 are allowed.
No prior art teaches a compound represented by the following [Formula 1], wherein m, n, o, p are each independently an integer from 0 to 1, with the proviso that m + n+o+p is an integer from 2 to 3 as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s principal arguments are the following:
A) Applicants respectfully submits that Choi and Joo fail to disclose or suggest at least the above features “ Independent claim 15 recites in part, “wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a compound selected from the compounds represented by the following [Formula 1] to [Formula 92] and [Formula 94] to [Formula 123]”. , when taken in the context of the claim as whole as they must be. Therefore, Choi and Joo fail to disclose or suggest every claim feature.
A) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Compounds 28-1 and 28-9 of Choi et al. is the same as the compounds of Formula [122] and Formula [123]. Therefore, a new ejection has been applied to newly submitted claims 15-21. See citations above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 76-78, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 , 10 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to claim amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of Choi et al. (WO 2019221545 A1; citations from USPGPUB 2021-0066619 A1) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 78-83, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-6, 11 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to claim amendments . The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Joo et al. (KR 10-2094830 B1; citations from USPGPUB 2020/0172558 A1) has been withdrawn.
B) Applicant has amended the Abstract to correct the informalities pointed out by the Office Action. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the objections to the specification.
B) Applicants have failed to provide an updated abstract with the changes on separate sheet of paper. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. Therefore, the objection to abstract is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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