DETAILED ACTION
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 (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.
Restriction/Election Requirement
The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s election of Group I (drawn to compound) in the Response filed 02/16/26 as set forth in the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 12/16/25.
The election reads on Claims 20-30 and 32-38.
Claims 20-38 are pending. Claim 31 has been withdrawn from consideration.
6. The Applicant argues on page 2 against the restriction/election requirement as “the claims are so linked by a special technical feature to have the requisite unity of invention.” Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Attention is directed to page 4 of the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 12/16/25 wherein the groups of invention have been found not to relate to single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 as the common technical feature is provided in the disclosure of Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1). Hence, the restriction/election requirement is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 22 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 clam, which is dependent on Claim 20, recites the variables “R8” and “p” which are nowhere defined. The Office has interpreted that the claim depends on Claim 21 for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
9. Claim 23 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 clam, which is dependent on Claim 20, recites the variables “R8” and “q” which are nowhere defined. The Office has interpreted that the claim depends on Claim 21 for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
10. Claim 24 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 clam, which is dependent on Claim 20, recites the variables “R8” and “r” which are nowhere defined. The Office has interpreted that the claim depends on Claim 21 for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
11. Claim 25 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 clam, which is dependent on Claim 20, recites the variables “R8” and “s” which are nowhere defined. The Office has interpreted that the claim depends on Claim 21 for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
12. Claim 38 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 use claims are indefinite as they attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. “Use” claims are not allowed in U.S. patent applications. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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.
14. Claims 20-22, 26-30, and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1).
Cho et al. discloses the following second compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
278
424
media_image1.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 formulae (1) and (5); p = 0 of Applicant’s Formulae (L-1) and (L-1-1). Cho et al. 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]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2017/0133590 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Cho et al. discloses the compound of Claim 20 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. The compound is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
278
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 52). Cho et al. discloses that such compounds are encompassed by the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
346
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0013]) where a23-25 = 0-3 ([0029]) and L23-25 = arylene such as phenylene and naphthylene ([0028], [0086]-[0088]). However, Cho et al. does not explicitly any of the compounds as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound D11 as disclosed by Cho et al. (above) such that L = any one of Formulae (L-2-1) to (L-2-11) (with q = 0). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves exchange of one linking group (phenylene) for a functional equivalent (another arylene., i.e., naphthylene) selected from a highly finite list as taught by Cho et al. (and easily envisioned from the scope of its general formula), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, Cho et al. discloses that a23-25 = integer from 0-3 ([0029]). However, Cho et al. does not explicitly any of the compounds as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound as disclosed by Cho et al. (above) such that L = any one of Formulae (L-3-1) to (L-3-14) (with r = 0) and any one of Formulae (L-4-1) to (L-4-6) (with s = 0). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves a homologous extension of the phenylene group, producing a compound that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties (and easily envisioned from the scope of Cho et al.’s formula as a23 or a24 = integer from 1-3), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
18. 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 above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. 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.
Conclusion
19. 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