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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US 2019/0363263) (Uno).
In reference to claim 1, Uno teaches a display device (Uno [0003] [0004]) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and a plurality of organic material layers between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein at least one organic material layer among the plurality of organic material layers comprises a compound of the formula 3 as shown below (Uno [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, wherein in the formula 3, X5 and X6 are each O, m, a and b are each 0, n is 1, L is a phenyl substituted triazine, R2 and R3 are each phenyl and are combined to form a ring (Uno [0014] to [0021]).
Uno discloses the compound of formula 3 that encompasses the presently claimed compound of formula 1, including wherein in the formula 3, X5 and X6 are each O, m, a and b are each 0, n is 1, L is a phenyl substituted triazine, R2 and R3 are each phenyl and are combined to form a ring. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Uno are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Uno and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a device comprising a compound of formula 1 wherein n is 1, m is 1, Y5 is O, Y6 isO, Cy1, Cy2, Cy3 and Cy4 are each benzene rings, one of a 1 to a4 is 1 and the others are 0 and the T1 to T4 that is present is bonded to a group of formula 3, one of T14 to T16 is a bond to formula 2, one of T14 to T16 is a phenyl and the other is an n-carbazole, each of X11 to X13 is N.
For Claim 2: Reads on n is 1 and m is 1.
For Claim 3: Reads on formula 1-1.
For Claim 4: Reads on benzene.
For Claim 5: Reads on formula 2-1.
For Claim 6: Reads on formula 2-2.
For Claim 7: Reads on each of X11 to X13 is N.
For Claim 8: Reads on condition 3-1.
For Claim 9: Reads on formula 3-1.
For Claim 10: Reads on hydrogen, phenyl or carbazole.
For Claim 11: Reads on single bond.
For Claim 12: Reads on compound 2.
For Claim 18: Reads on an apparatus.
In reference to claims 13 to 17, Uno teaches the device as described above wherein one of the plurality of organic layers includes the spiro compound. Uno further teaches that among these layers that can comprise the compound are hole transport layers, buffer layers, electron transport layers, blocking layers, injection layers, emission layers among others (Uno [0007] [0077] [0083] [0093] [0095] [0088] etc.) and further that the emission layer can further include known dopants (Uno [0091]) and that the use of the material in an organic layer improves efficiency and device lifetime (Uno [0105]).
Given that Uno discloses the device configuration that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the layer including the compound is an emitting layer or buffer layer as claimed, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use device configuration, which is both disclosed by Uno and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US 2019/0363263) (Uno) in view of Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claim 19-20, Uno teaches the display device as described for claim 18 above (Uno [0003] [0004]).
Uno does not expressly teach that this device includes a TFT or a color filter etc. as instantly claimed. With respect to the difference, Song teaches, in analogous art, display devices with similar materials comprising thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes (Song [0132] to [0134]) and a color filter (Song [0143]).
It would have been obvious to use the device configuration of Song including well known elements such as thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes and a color filter with the expectation of providing an organic EL display device with improved color characteristics, efficiency and lifespan (Song abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-18 as unpatentable over Uno previously set forth, Applicant argues that the new examples in the remarks show that the instant claims give rise to unexpected results in comparison with a device comprising a compound of Uno. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
The new results are not present in the specification nor are they presented in a declaration or affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 and are therefore not considered. The results from the specification were previously discussed and not convincing, please see the remarks from the final office action mailed 03/12/2026.
Additionally, Applicant is reminded that for a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights