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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 09/08/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 12/09/2025, the claims and specification were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification, the objection to claim 1 and the specification are withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-2 and 4-20 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-9 and 11-15 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 2021/0067269 A1), claims 16-19 as being unpatentable over Cho above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2020/00006676 A1), and of claim 20 as being unpatentable over Cho above, and further in view of Xavier et al. (US 2011/0049481 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 2, 6, and 7 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
In the Non-Final office action dated 09/29/2025, Examiner failed to reject claim 10 with relevant prior art.
Accordingly, a new Non-Final office action is furnished herein to replace the Non-Final office action dated 09/29/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Cho et al. (KR 2021/0067269 A) 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
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0341556 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Takahashi teaches the compound below (page 91).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Takahashi Formula (3-11) (paragraph 024), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
538
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takahashi also teaches that any of R1 to R7 and R10 to R16 is -N(R36)(R37), as long as at least one of R1 to R7 and R10 to R16 is -N(R36)(R37) (paragraph 0153, lines 23-24).
Given the general formula and teachings of Takahashi, which do not limit the bonding position of the required amino substituent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound above in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material of the emitting layer of the electroluminescent device of Takahashi and possess the properties taught by Takahashi. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
When the arylamine group of Takahashi is located at R1 and forms a positional isomer, the compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 12 when X11 and X12 are carbon atoms, Y11 to Y16 are carbon atoms, Z11 to Z16 are carbon atoms, W11 and W12 are carbon atoms, A11 is a benzene group, C11 to C14 are each benzene, Rx is represented by Formula 2-1, Ry is a hydrogen atom, b11 is 1 and R11 is a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) group, b12 is 1 and R12 is a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) group, b13 is 0 and R13 is not present, and b14 is 1 and R14 is a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) group.
In Formula 2-1, a21 is 0 and L21 is not present, and R21 and R22 are both a C6 aryl (phenyl) group.
Formulae 2-2 and 2-3 are not present and their respective Markush variables are absent.
With respect to claim 3, Takahashi teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Takahashi also teaches that Formula 3-11 is derived from the combination of Formula (1-1) and (1-3) (paragraph 0013), and that the two atomic bonds represented with an asterisk in formula (1-1) are respectively bonded to any ring carbon atom in ring A.
Such a modification produces a compound of the instant claim wherein X13 and X14 are bonded to one pair of instant W11 and W12 and X15 and X16 are bonded to the remaining W11 and W12.
Takahashi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Takahashi being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 bond at any location on the center ring A, and arrive at a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which is a useful material for organic electroluminescent devices and which can enhance the luminous efficiency of the organic electroluminescent device when used as a fluorescent emitting dopant in the emitting layer of the device (paragraph 0535), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 4, Takahashi teaches the compound of claim 1, and A11 is represented by formula 3-13, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 5, Takahashi teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Takahashi also teaches the compound below (page 97).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is also derived from Takahashi Formula (3-11) (paragraph 024), pictured and discussed above.
As discussed above, Takahashi teaches that any of R1 to R7 and R10 to R16 is -N(R36)(R37), as long as at least one of R1 to R7 and R10 to R16 is -N(R36)(R37) (paragraph 0153, lines 23-24).
Given the general formula and teachings of Takahashi, which do not limit the bonding position of the required amino substituent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound above in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material of the emitting layer of the electroluminescent device of Takahashi and possess the properties taught by Takahashi. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of the instant claim when both Rx and Ry are represented by Formula 2-1.
With respect to claim 8, Takahashi teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is represented by instant Formula 12-1 for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Takahashi teaches the compound of claim 1, and A11 is represented by instant formula 3-13, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 10, Takahashi teaches the compound below (page 97).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Takahashi Formula (3-11) (paragraph 024), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
538
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takahashi also teaches that any of R1 to R7 and R10 to R16 is -N(R36)(R37), as long as at least one of R1 to R7 and R10 to R16 is -N(R36)(R37) (paragraph 0153, lines 23-24).
Given the general formula and teachings of Takahashi, which do not limit the bonding position of the required amino substituent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound above in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a material of the emitting layer of the electroluminescent device of Takahashi and possess the properties taught by Takahashi. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer is identical to the instant third embodiment of the claim.
With respect to claims 11, 12, 13, and 15, Takahashi teaches the compound of claim 1, and Takahashi also teaches an organic light-emitting device (an organic electroluminescence device) comprising a first and second electrode (anode and cathode) and an organic layer (paragraph 0075) comprising an emission layer between the electrodes and the emission layer comprises the compound as a fluorescent emitter (paragraph 0248), along with a host compound, and the host is present in an amount greater than the compound (paragraphs 0413 and 0417).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compound as an emitter compound in the emitting layer of an organic light emitting device with the claimed device structure, as taught by Takahashi.
With respect to claim 14, Takahashi teaches the device of claim 13, and Takahashi also teaches that the emission layer may comprise a blue fluorescent or blue phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs 0428 and 0435).
With respect to claim 20, Takahashi teaches the device of claim 11, and Takahashi also teaches an electronic apparatus comprising the device (paragraphs 0481-0482).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device in an electronic apparatus, as taught by Takahashi.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0341556 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2020/0006676 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Takahashi teaches the device of claim 12, as discussed above.
However, Takahashi does not teach nor fairly suggest that the emitting layer further comprises a sensitizer.
With respect to the difference, Kwak discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer which has a host, dopant, and sensitizer (abstract).
Kwak teaches that when a sensitizer of Formulae 1 or 2 is used in combination with a host and dopant, the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light-emitting device may be improved because it has excellent characteristics in terms of exciton transfer to the dopant (paragraph 0339).
Kwak goes on to teach an example device (Table 1, page 292) which has an emission layer comprising 88% host, 10% sensitizer, and 2% dopant.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the sensitizer of Kwak in a lesser amount than the host, but greater amount than the heterocyclic dopant in the emission layer of Takahashi in order to obtain an organic light-emitting device with improved lifespan and efficiency, as taught by Kwak.
With respect to claim 17, Takahashi and Kwak teach the device of claim 16, and Takahashi also teaches that the emission layer may comprise a blue fluorescent or blue phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs 0428 and 0435).
With respect to claim 18, Takahashi and Kwak teach the device of claim 16, and Takahashi also teaches that the compound is a fluorescent emitter (paragraph 0416).
With respect to claim 19, Takahashi and Kwak teach the device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound of modified Takahashi to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it falls completely within the limitations of the instant independent claim. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Takahashi reads on the claims.
Takahashi is silent to the decay time of the compound above. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound of Takahashi is used as an emitter in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Takahashi, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Takahashi was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786