DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 04/17/26.
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 Claims 1-6 and 8-20 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 02/04/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (WO 2020/111253 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/04/26 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (WO 2020/111253 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/04/26 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (WO 2020/111253 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of WIPO publication WO 2020/111253 A1 (herein referred to as “Takahashi et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Takahashi et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light emitting element) comprising the following layers: substrate (2), anode (3), first hole-transporting layer (6a), second hole-transporting layer (6b), light-emitting layer (5), first electron-transporting layer (7a), second electron-transporting layer (7b), and cathode (4) (Fig. 2 of Takahashi et al.; [0249]). Takahashi et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 162 of Takahashi et al.) such that o = p = 0, n = 0, Ra = deuterium atom or a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl group of 1 to 30 ring-forming carbon atoms, L1-2 = unsubstituted arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenylene), X = O, Ar1 = unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and FG = Applicant’s Formula 5 (with m5 = 0) of Applicant’s Formulae 1 and 1-4 as comprising (any one of) the hole-transporting layer(s) ([0243]). Takahashi et al. discloses compounds such as the following as host material comprising the light-emitting layer:
PNG
media_image2.png
70
160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 209 of Takahashi et al.) such that c = d = 1, R39-40 = unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms (phenyl), and R31-38 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Formula E-1.
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.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (WO 2020/111253 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of WIPO publication WO 2020/111253 A1 (herein referred to as “Takahashi et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Takahashi et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light emitting element) of Claim 1 and the amine compound of Claim 11 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. Takahashi et al. discloses the inventive compound to be encompassed by the following formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
436
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 14 of Takahashi et al.) where R1-20 = hydrogen (including deuterium) or substituent group ([0017], [0026]). Takahashi et al. discloses that its inventive compounds may contain deuterium atoms; i.e., deuterium(s) is (are) introduced into the compound such as “at least one of the hydrogen atoms contained in the compound is a deuterium atom” ([0053]). However, Takahashi et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the compound as disclosed by Takahashi et al. (on page 161) such that at least one hydrogen atom is substituted with a deuterium atom. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the exchange of one group (hydrogen) for a functional equivalent (another viable substituent; i.e., deuterium) specifically taught by Takahashi et al. and easily envisioned from the scope of its general formula; additional motivation exists, as the modification merely involves the exchange of one group for its isotope (differing by one neutron atom) which can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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. Furthermore, Claim 20 is allowed.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of WIPO publication WO 2020/111253 A1 (herein referred to as “Takahashi et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The closest prior art is provided by Takahashi et al. (WO 2020/111253 A1), which discloses inventive compounds encompassed by the following formula for use in an organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image3.png
436
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 14 of Takahashi et al.) where R1-20 = hydrogen (including deuterium) or substituent group ([0017], [0026]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 162 of Takahashi et al.). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Takahashi 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 of the substituents attached to the core dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene group.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 73-77 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above. Notice particularly that the compound as disclosed by Takahashi et al. (see above rejection) would still read on Formula 1 as recited in Claims 1 and 11, as the condition when FG = Applicant’s Formula 5 is still met as n = 0 (regardless of the nature of the Ra group).
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 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