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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 16–32 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 16–32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (CN 110407854 A, hereinafter “Duan”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/27/2026. The rejections are withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 10–12 of the reply dated 05/27/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 16–32 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant has amended claim 16 to now recite Formula IIa which only has two nitrogen atoms. The embodiment relied upon in the previous rejection includes a triazine group, i.e., with three nitrogen atoms. Therefore, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. Applicant then argues that Duan does not disclose, either expressly or inherently, a compound in which RA comprises the structure of Formula IIa.
Examiner's response – The examiner respectfully disagrees. Duan teaches compounds which include a diazine and therefore read on Applicant’s Formula IIa, as discussed below.
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 16–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN 110407854 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on 01/19/2023, hereinafter “Duan”).
Regarding Claims 16–32, Duan discloses Compound C-104 [pg. 8] which nearly reads on Applicant’s Formula I and Formula IIa (shown below). However, the pyrimidine in Compound C-104 is bonded on the 6-position instead of the 2-position and therefore does not read on Applicant’s Formula IIa.
PNG
media_image1.png
208
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
148
124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
261
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound C-104 is represented by Duan’s Equation (3) (shown below) [pg. 3]. Duan teaches R40 is preferably represented by Equation (a), wherein Y1 to Y5 may be selected form N or CH (shown below) [pg. 4]. Additionally, Duan teaches R40 is further preferred to be a pyridine [pg. 4]. Notably, Duan does not specify the bonding position of the pyridine. Additionally, Duan teaches OLED devices comprising the compound of present invention have low starting voltage, high luminous efficiency, and better service lifetime [pg. 12].
PNG
media_image4.png
224
254
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
179
130
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given the general formula and teachings of Duan, 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 Compound C-104 wherein the pyridine position is changed from the 6-position to the 2-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional positional isomers of the compound represented by Compound C-104 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a dopant in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Duan and possess the properties taught by Duan. 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the 2-position, because it would have been choosing between the 2, 4, 5, or 6-position, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Duan and possessing the benefits taught by Duan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Equation (3) having the benefits taught by Duan in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 16, the position isomer of Compound C-104 (hereinafter “Modified C-104”) reads on Applicant’s Formula I and Formula IIa (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
208
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
148
124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
336
357
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
RA is described by Formula IIa,
Z are each a direct bond,
R1 are each hydrogen,
RII, RIII, and RVII are each a C1 alkyl (methyl),
RI, RIV, RVI, and RVIII are each a hydrogen.
Per Claim 17, Modified C-104 reads on Applicant’s Formula Ia (shown below), wherein RA, RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RVI, RVII and RVIII are the same as described above.
PNG
media_image7.png
209
242
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
336
357
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 18, Modified C-104 reads on Applicant’s Formula IIa (shown below), wherein R1 are each a hydrogen.
PNG
media_image8.png
144
128
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
336
357
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 19, Modified C-104 reads on Applicants’ Formula Ib (shown below), wherein RA, RI, RII, RIII, RIV, and RVII are the same as described above.
PNG
media_image9.png
210
239
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
336
357
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 20, Modified C-104 reads on Applicant’s Formula Ib-1 (shown below), wherein R1, RII, RIII, RIV are the same as described above.
PNG
media_image10.png
225
210
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
336
357
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 21 and 22, Duan teaches Modified C-104 wherein RII, RIII, and RVII are each a C1 alkyl (methyl, Me), and RI, RIV, RVI, and RVIII are each a hydrogen.
Per Claim 23, Duan teaches Modified C-104 wherein R4, R5, and R6 are not present as they are not represented in Applicant’s Formula I and Formula IIa. Therefore, Modified C-104 reads on Applicant’s limitation since R4, R5, and R6 do not present.
Per Claims 24 and 25, Duan teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic layer comprising a compound shown in in any of the general equations (1) to (4) [pg. 12], such as Modified C-104.
Per Claim 26, Duan teaches a light-emitting layer [pg. 19] including:
a TADF dye, such as Modified C-104,
a host material,
not included as it is optional.
Per Claims 27–32, Duan teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a substrate, an anode, a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, electron transport layer, and a cathode. The light-emitting layer comprises a host material and a TADF dye, such as Modified C-104, which were deposited by vacuum evaporation [pg. 19].
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (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.
/J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights