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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on November 25, 2021 and September 30, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on February 12, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of species Group 1 wherein ring E1 is selected from a 6 membered ring and Species Group 2 wherein ring R is selected from a substituent other than a 5 or 6 membered ring in the reply filed on February 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the specific core scaffold structure claimed constitute a single class of compounds and do not impose an undue search burden. In light of the prior art search conducted, this argument is found persuasive.
The requirement for election of species set forth on December 18, 2025 is hereby withdrawn and all species/claims are rejoined.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claims 1 – 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on February 12, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objection
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites that “the organic layer is a charge generation layer and disposed between the at least two light-emitting units.” Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “the organic layer is a charge generation layer and is disposed between the at least two light-emitting units.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 19 of copending Application No. 19/346340 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because compounds of Formula 1 in instant claim 1 overlap in scope with compounds of Formula I in claim 1of the ‘340 application as evidenced by at least compound P-4 in claim 13 which contains a linking group with the ortho substitution claimed in the instant applicaiton.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3 – 7 and 12 – 15 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 – 7, 12 and 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected as being dependent on claims 12 and 13.
For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as not requiring the limitations following the phrase “preferably.”
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 – 3, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding (US20210296594A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, 7 and 16, Ding teaches:
A compound having a structure of Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
320
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ding teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image2.png
110
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0013]). A particular compound taught by Ding is compound 975, wherein Z1 and Z2 are N, X and Y are a group represented by A1
PNG
media_image3.png
76
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, R is a group represented by B99
PNG
media_image4.png
86
312
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and RN is a group represented by B14
PNG
media_image5.png
68
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0121]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Z is selected from NRN, Z’ and Z” are each C; Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; R1 represents nonsubstitution; ring E1 is an aromatic ring having 6 carbon atoms; R’ and R” are a cyano group; R is a substituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; RN is an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom. The compound is represented by Formula 1-1 in claim 2. As the composition of claim 16 only requires a compound of Formula 1, the compound of Ding is interpreted as the claimed composition.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US20210296594A1) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 7 and 16 above.
As per claim 10, Ding teaches compound 975 above, but Ding does not specifically teach the use of the compound in a device. Ding teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the compound ([0022]: “According to yet another embodiment, an organic light-emitting device is also disclosed, which comprises an anode, a cathode, and organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound having Formula 1.”)
Ding teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Ding as Ding demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 11, Ding teaches:
Wherein the organic layer is a hole injection layer or a hole transporting layer and the hole injection layer or the hole transporting layer is formed by the compound alone ([0136]: “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, in the device, the organic layer is a hole injection layer or a hole transporting layer, and the hole injection layer or the hole transporting layer are formed from a compound of Formula 1 alone.”)
As per claim 12, Ding teaches:
Wherein the organic layer is a hole injection layer or a hole transporting layer, the hole injection layer or the hole transporting layer further comprises at least one hole transporting material and a molar doping ratio of the compound to the at least one hole transporting material is 10,000:1 to 1:10,000 ([0137]: “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, in the device, the organic layer is a hole injection layer or a hole transporting layer, and the hole injection layer or the hole transporting layer further comprise at least one hole transporting material; and wherein the molar doping ratio of the compound of Formula 1 to the hole transporting material is from 10000:1 to 1:10000.”)
As per claim 13, Ding teaches:
Wherein the electroluminescent device comprises at least two light-emitting units and the organic layer is a charge generation layer and disposed between the at least two light-emitting units, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and an n-type charge generation layer([0140]: “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the electroluminescent device comprises a plurality of stacks disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the stacks comprise a first light-emitting layer and a second light-emitting layer, wherein the first stack comprises a first light-emitting layer, and the second stack comprises a second light-emitting layer, and a charge generation layer is disposed between the first stack and the second stack, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and an n-type charge generation layer.”)
As per claim 14, Ding teaches:
Wherein the hole transporting material is selected from a compound having a triarylamine unit…([0139]: “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the hole injection layer or the hole transporting layer further comprise at least one hole transporting material, wherein the hole transporting material comprises a compound having a triarylamine unit.”)
As per claim 15, Ding teaches:
Wherein the charge generation layer further comprises a buffer layer disposed between the p-type charge generation layer and the n-type charge generation layer, and the buffer layer comprises the compound ([0144]: “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the charge generation layer further includes a buffer layer disposed between the p-type charge generation layer and the n-type charge generation layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises a compound of Formula 1.”)
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (US20200062778A1).
As per claims 1 – 9 and 16, Cui teaches:
A compound having a structure of Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
320
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ding teaches compounds of Formula I
PNG
media_image6.png
128
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Claim 11). A particular compound taught by Cui is compound 72 in claim 11, wherein Z1 and Z2 are O, X and Y are a group represented by A1
PNG
media_image3.png
76
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, R is a group represented by B72
PNG
media_image7.png
164
286
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. While group B72 contains a phenyl group in a meta position instead of the claimed ortho position, the group is a positional isomer of the claimed substituent.)
The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state “A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities.” An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c). and “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). Homology and isomerism involve close structural similarity which must be considered with all other relevant facts in determining the issue of obviousness. In re Mills, 281 F.2d 218, 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to move the phenyl substituent of group B72 to the ortho position as claimed, based on the close structural similarity of the compounds and the expectation that they would possess similar properties. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Z is selected from O, Z’ and Z” are each C; Ar1 is a substituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; R1 represents one substitution of a substituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom, namely a group represented by A3 in claim 8; ring E1 is an aromatic ring having 6 carbon atoms; R’ and R” are a cyano group; R is a substituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms, namely a group represented by compound B250 in claim 8. The compound is represented by Formula 1-1 in claim 2 and Formula 2-1 in claim 4, wherein X1 to X4 are each CR1. This compound is compound H1-1736 in claim 9. As the composition of claim 16 only requires a compound of Formula 1, the modified compound of Cui is interpreted as the claimed composition.
As per claim 10, Cui teaches:
An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises the compound ([0021]: “According to yet another embodiment, an organic light-emitting device is also disclosed, which comprises an anode, a cathode, and organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer comprises a compound having Formula 1.”)
Cui teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Cui as Cui demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 11, Cui teaches:
Wherein the organic layer is a hole injection layer or a hole transporting layer and the hole injection layer or the hole transporting layer is formed by the compound alone ([0131]: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, in the device, the organic layer is a hole injection layer, and the hole injection layer is formed from the compound alone.”)
As per claim 12, Cui teaches:
Wherein the organic layer is a hole injection layer or a hole transporting layer, the hole injection layer or the hole transporting layer further comprises at least one hole transporting material, and a molar doping ratio of the compound to the at least one hole transporting material is 10,000:1 to 1:10,000 ([0132]: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, in the device, the organic layer is a hole injection layer, and the hole injection layer is formed from the compound comprising a dopant which comprises at least one hole transporting material; wherein the hole transporting material comprises a compound having a triarylamine unit, a spirobifluorene compound, a pentacene compound, an oligothiophene compound, an oligophenyl compound, an oligophenylene vinyl compound, an oligofluorene compound, a porphyrin complex or a metal phthalocyanine complex, and wherein the molar doping ratio of the compound to the hole transporting material is from 10000:1 to 1:10000.”)
As per claim 13, Cui teaches:
Wherein the electroluminescent device comprises at least two light-emitting units and the organic layer is a charge generation layer and disposed between the at least two light-emitting units, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and an n-type charge generation layer ([0134]: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the electroluminescent device comprises a plurality of stacks disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the stacks comprise a first light-emitting layer and a second light-emitting layer, wherein the first stack comprises a first light-emitting layer, and the second stack comprises a second light-emitting layer, and a charge generation layer is disposed between the first stack and the second stack, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and an n-type charge generation layer.”)
As per claim 14, Cui teaches:
Wherein the hole transporting material is selected from a compound having a triarylamine unit… ([0132]: “Wherein the hole transporting material comprises a compound having a triarylamine unit…”)
As per claim 15, Cui teaches:
Wherein the charge generation layer further comprises a buffer layer disposed between the p-type charge generation layer and the n-type charge generation layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises the compound ([0136]: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the charge generation layer further includes a buffer layer disposed between the p-type charge generation layer and the n-type charge generation layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises the compound.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789