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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 21 July 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 9-10, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendment to claim 9 has required the revision of the rejection of claims 9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejections are outlined below.
The amendment to claim 9 has overcome the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park. The rejection is withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 9 has required the revision of the rejection of claims 9, 11-15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2023/096210 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Park ‘210”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejections are outlined below.
The amendment to claim 9 has overcome the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park ‘210. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendment to claim 1 has required the revision of the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica- Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action. The revised rejections are outlined below.
The amendments to claims 1 and 9 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) and Hirata et al. (“Relationship between room temperature phosphorescence and deuteration position in a purely aromatic compound”, Chemical Physics Letters, 591 (2014) pp. 119-125.) (hereafter “Hirata”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.); the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”). The rejections have been withdrawn; and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 9 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) and Hirata et al. (“Relationship between room temperature phosphorescence and deuteration position in a purely aromatic compound”, Chemical Physics Letters, 591 (2014) pp. 119-125.) (hereafter “Hirata”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 July 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments of the claims have overcome the rejections and that the amended claims are not anticipated by Park.
For the reasons outlined below, the claims 9 and 11-20 remain anticipated by Park.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”) set forth in the last Office action 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 21 July 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 9-15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2023/096210 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Park ‘210”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments of the claims have overcome the rejections and that the amended claims are not anticipated by Park ‘210.
For the reasons outlined below, the claims 9, 11-15, and 19 remain anticipated by Park ‘210.
Furthermore, for the reasons outlined below, claim 10 is obvious over the teachings of Park ‘210.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations of unexpected results, it is not clear that the proffered results show that the modification of Park ‘210’s compound,
PNG
media_image1.png
576
1174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, outlined below would have an unexpected outcome. Applicant has proffered no results showing that substituting a branched alkyl group in place of a cycloalkyl group as the substituent of the instant Ar1 or Ar2 would lead to unexpected results.
Applicant's arguments filed 21 July 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica- Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments of the claims have overcome the rejections and that the amended claims are not obvious over the teachings of Park. Applicant additionally argues that the proffered results represent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, showing nonobviousness over Park.
For the reasons outlined below, the claims remain obvious over the teachings of Park.
With respect to Applicant’s allegations of unexpected results with respect to the teachings of Park, the cited compound of Park has the structure of the current Formula 1 of the current claim 1. A device comprising a compound current Formula 1 of the current claim 1 would possess the properties observed by Applicant.
Furthermore, it is not clear that the proffered results are commensurate in scope with the compounds of the current Formula 1 of the current claim 1. No results are presented for compounds in which a substituent that can be equated with the current R1 or R2 is alkoxy (as in Compound 1-83 of Park), alkenyl groups fused together (as in Compounds 1-136 and 1-140 of Park), or aryloxy and alkenyl groups fused together (as in Compound 1-148 of Park). It is not clear that similar results would be observed for such compounds as those results observed for the tested compounds.
For at least these reasons, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 26-29 of the reply filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) and Hirata et al. (“Relationship between room temperature phosphorescence and deuteration position in a purely aromatic compound”, Chemical Physics Letters, 591 (2014) pp. 119-125.) (hereafter “Hirata”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.); the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”). The rejections have been withdrawn; and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) and Hirata et al. (“Relationship between room temperature phosphorescence and deuteration position in a purely aromatic compound”, Chemical Physics Letters, 591 (2014) pp. 119-125.) (hereafter “Hirata”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.); the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”). The rejections have been withdrawn; and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 26-29 of the reply filed 21 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) and Hirata et al. (“Relationship between room temperature phosphorescence and deuteration position in a purely aromatic compound”, Chemical Physics Letters, 591 (2014) pp. 119-125.) (hereafter “Hirata”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica-Fernaud et al. (US 2015/0295181 A1) (hereafter “Mujica-Fernaud”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1) (hereafter “Li”) and Hirata et al. (“Relationship between room temperature phosphorescence and deuteration position in a purely aromatic compound”, Chemical Physics Letters, 591 (2014) pp. 119-125.) (hereafter “Hirata”) set forth in the last Office action have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 9 and 11-20: Park discloses the compound shown below {p. 19}.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound has the structure of the instant Formula 1A-12 of claim 20. Note that the spiro carbon is drawn as 2-dimensional in the structural formulas, but would have a 3-dimensional structure in reality, and two of the bonds to the spiro carbon would be perpendicular to the other two bonds of the spiro carbon.
Claim(s) 9, 11-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2023/096210 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Park ‘210”).
Regarding claims 9, 11-15, 17, and 19: Park ‘210 discloses the compound shown below {p. 14}
PNG
media_image3.png
412
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6: Park discloses the compound shown below {p. 19}.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the compound Park shown above.
However, Park teaches that the compounds of Park are useful as materials of a hole transporting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0061] and [0141]}.
Additionally, Park teaches a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode that is an anode, a second electrode that is a cathode, and an interlayer containing a light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}.
The interlayer comprises a hole transport region between the light-emitting layer and the anode {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}. The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}. The hole transport layer comprises the compound shown below {paragraphs [0061] and [0141]}.
The interlayer comprises an electron transport region between the light-emitting layer and the cathode {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}. The electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer and an electron transport layer {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0043]-[0051], [0141]-[0144]}.
Park teaches that by using the compound according to the present invention, high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage and high heat resistance of the element can be achieved, and color purity and lifespan of the element can be greatly improved {paragraph [0016]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Park described above, by using the compound of Park as the material of the hole transport layer of the device of Park, based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce devices having high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage, and high heat resistance as well as improved color purity, as taught by Park.
An organic light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mishima et al. (US 2005/0202278 A1) (hereafter “Mishima”) and Baranoff et al. (“FIrpic: archetypal blue phosphorescent emitter for electroluminescence” Dalton Transactions, 2015, 44, pp. 8318-8329.).
Regarding claim 5: Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Park does not describe that the organic light-emitting device emits blue light.
Mishima teaches that FIrpic is a blue light-emitting phosphorescent dopant {paragraph [0162]}.
Baranoff teaches that FIrpic as a maximum emission wavelength of 475 nm {p. 8323, 1st col., 3rd paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light-emitting device of Park such that FIrpic was used as a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant, based on the teaching of Mishima. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a blue-light emitting device, as taught by Mishima.
The resultant device would emit blue light from the emission layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujica- Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 7: Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Park further teaches that the organic light-emitting device of taught by Park can be used in a display device {paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and [0143]}.
Park does not exemplify that the display device is a flat panel display or that the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor.
Kim ‘710 teaches flat panel display comprising organic light-emitting devices as the light-emitting elements {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0060]}.
The display comprises a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0039] [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode, Element 260 is the source electrode, and Element 220-3 is the active layer.}
The first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraph [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode and is in electrical contact with the electrode of the organic light-emitting device, Element 310.}.
Kim ‘710 sought to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield {abstract, paragraph [0019], and [0059]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Park by using the device as light-emitting elements of the flat panel display device of Kim ‘710, based on the teachings of Kim ‘710. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield, as taught by Kim ‘710.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2021/230650 A1—US 2023/0240141 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Park”), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”).
Regarding claim 8: Park teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Park further teaches that the organic light-emitting device of taught by Park can be used in a display device {paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and [0143]}.
Kim ‘985 teaches a display device comprising a substrate, and on the substrate, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, an organic light emitting device corresponding to each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0044]}. The display device additionally comprising a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions and disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode {paragraphs [0050]-[0052]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Park by including the device in the display device structure of Kim ‘985 described above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘985. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2023/096210 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Park ‘210”).
Regarding claims 9-15 and 17-20: Park ‘210 discloses the compound shown below {p. 14}
PNG
media_image1.png
576
1174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park ‘210 does not disclose a compound similar to the compound shown above except for not having cycloalkyl substituents.
However, Park ‘210 teaches that the compound of Park ‘210 shown above has the structure of Chemical Formula 5-2 of Park ‘210, shown below {paragraphs [0060]-[0063], [0090], and [0097]-[0106]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
602
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where R1 and R2 of Park ‘210 can alternatively be alkyl in addition to optionally being cycloalkyl {paragraph [0071]}. Park ‘210 exemplifies tert-butyl as an option for R1 and R2 of Park ‘210 {paragraphs [0141], [0148], [0151], [0152], [0153], [0156], [0157], [0158], [0160], [0162], [0164], [0167], and [0170]: Compounds P-75, P-76, P-102, P-103, P-114, P-118, P-122, P-135, P-140, P-141, P-142, P-152, P-158, P-165, P-166, P-177, P-180, and P-192}.
Park ‘210 teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Park ‘210 when used in organic light emitting devices provide devices having high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage, and high heat resistance as well as improved color purity and lifespan {paragraph [0013]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted tertiary butyl groups in place of the cyclohexane groups, based on the teaching of Park ‘210. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of tertiary butyl would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups R1 and R2 of Park ‘210), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light emitting devices. In this case, this means providing for additional compounds based on the teachings of park ‘210 that when used in organic light emitting devices provide devices having high luminous efficiency, low driving voltage, and high heat resistance as well as improved color purity and lifespan, as taught by Park ‘210.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
