DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 07/23/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claim 22 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 23 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 24 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 25 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 38 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 20-22, 26-30, and 33-37 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 33 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.
The claim recites “the formula (1)” which is nowhere defined. The Office has interpreted the term to refer to “the formula (3) of claim 20” for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 20-22, 27-30, and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1).
Cho et al. discloses second compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
346
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0013]) where a23-25 = 0-3 ([0029]), L23-25 = arylene such as phenylene and naphthylene, and X22 = O or S (among others) ([0018], [0028], [0086]-[0088]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
278
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 52) such that m = n = o = 0, R2-3 = straight-chain alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (methyl), L = divalent aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (phenylene), R5 = aromatic ring system which has 6 aromatic ring atoms (phenyl), Y = CR7 (with R7 = hydrogen), and X = O of Applicant’s formula (3); p = 0 of Applicant’s Formulae (L-1) and (L-1-1). However, Cho et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound that is fully encompassed by Applicant’s formula (3). However, it would have been obvious to modify compound D11 as disclosed by Cho et al. (above) such that the resulting compound fully corresponds to Applicant’s formula (3). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the bonding position of the dibenzofuranyl group to the phenylene linker (i.e., from 4- to 1-position), producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; additional motivation exists, including the fact that the production merely involves the selection of one possible embodiment from a highly finite list (in regards to the bonding position of the dibenzofuranyl group to the phenylene linker) as envisioned from the scope of Cho et al.’s general formula (above), thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Cho et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: anode (110), organic layer (150), and cathode (190) (Figure); the organic layer comprises a hole-transporting region, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting region ([0186]). Cho et al. discloses that the organic layer comprises a first compound and a second compound ([0012]-[0013]); the former serves as host material (matrix) ([0245]). The hole-transporting region comprises a hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, and fluorescent assistant layer ([0189]); its inventive second compounds comprise the hole-transporting region, including the fluorescent assistant layer ([0194]-[0195]). Any of such layers are formed via spin coating (involving dissolution of material in solvent) ([0191]).
16. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1) as applied above and in further view of Hayer et al. (US 2015/0322198 A1).
Cho et al. discloses the compound of Claim 20 as shown. Cho et al. discloses its inventive compounds to be electron-blocking and hole-injecting/transporting materials, the use of which in an organic electroluminescent (EL) device results in a device with high efficiency and long lifespan ([0007], [0188], [0194], [0240]). However, Cho et al. does not explicitly disclose an oligomer, polymer, or dendrimer as recited in the claim.
Hayer et al. discloses polymers for use in an organic EL device (OLED) (Abstract; [0009]); the polymer contains additional structural units which influence the hole-injecting and/or hole-transporting properties of the polymer ([0027]-[0028]). Hayer et al. discloses such additional structural units to be triarylamines ([0036]). It would have been obvious to incorporate any of the inventive compounds as disclosed by Cho et al. into the polymers as disclosed by Hayer et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Cho et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive hole-transporting compounds results in a device with high efficiency and long lifespan.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is provided by Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1), which discloses second compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
346
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0013]) where a23-25 = 0-3 ([0029]), L23-25 = arylene such as phenylene and naphthylene, and X22 = O or S (among others) ([0018], [0028], [0086]-[0088]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
278
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 52). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Cho et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses any of the compounds as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the nature and bonding configuration of the substituents attached to the arylamino nitrogen atom of Applicant’s formula (3).
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the deficiencies of the previously stated prior art rejection have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above. The Applicant argues that “Cho is directed towards a mixture of compounds . . . Cho also does not state anything regarding the possible use of single compounds” (page 38); however, the arguments fail to address that the composition as disclosed by Cho et al. still comprises the specific compound (after predictable modification) that would read on the compound limitations as recited in the claims. The open-ended language of the claims nowhere excludes the presence of other compounds that would prevent the use of the composition as disclosed by Cho et al. to arrive at the Applicant’s invention.
Conclusion
19. 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.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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, Jennifer A Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights