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 .
Election/Restrictions
As discussed in the previous rejection dated 03/09/2026, claims 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 7 are amended and claim 6 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 05/27/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are pending and claims 15-16 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 6 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 6 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 05/27/2026.
The rejection of claim 7 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 previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2021/0403489 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-18 of the reply dated 05/27/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-18 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended, wherein at least one selected from RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV, RVI, RVII, RVIII, RIX, and RX is selected from specific groups. Applicant further argues one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures of elements in the prior art to obviate the claimed invention.
Examiner's response –As discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Hatakeyama (English translation of WO 2019198698 obtained from Espacenet) provides motivation to modify a compound of Kim to arrive at a compound of the amended claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0403489 A1) in view of Hatakeyama (English translation of WO 2019198698 obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-18, Kim teaches an organic light emitting device having improved driving voltage, light efficiency, and service life characteristics by including a compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract). Kim teaches examples of such devices including Example 3 which includes a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, two hole transport layers, a light emitting layer including a host and Compound 3 as a dopant, an electron injecting and transporting layer, and a cathode (structure on page 89; Table 1 on page 94; ¶ [0350]-[0354]). Compound 3 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula I.
1:
PNG
media_image1.png
162
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image2.png
98
58
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 3 fails to read on the proviso of the claimed Formula I. However, Kim does teach in Formula 1, n3 and n5 may each be 0 and R3 and R5 may each be a substituted alkyl group, wherein substituents thereof include halogen (¶ [0012]-[0013] and [0043]).
Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element having improved luminous efficiency and life by including a fluorine-substituted polycyclic aromatic compound represented by a general formula (1), wherein the polycyclic aromatic compound is used as a material in the light-emitting layer (¶ [0009]-[0012]). In the polycyclic aromatic compound, at least one hydrogen is substituted with fluorine (¶ [0012]). Examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) include compound (1-6) (pg. 34).
general formula (1):
PNG
media_image3.png
161
162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(1-6):
PNG
media_image4.png
110
204
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 3 reads on Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) except for wherein at least one hydrogen is substituted with fluorine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute each of the groups
PNG
media_image2.png
98
58
media_image2.png
Greyscale
connected to the N-phenyl with CF3, as shown in compound (1-6) of Hatakeyama, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama.
The modified Compound 3 reads on Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) wherein: ring A, ring B, and ring C are each a substituted aryl ring; Y1 is B; X1 and X2 are each N-R; R is a CF3-substituted aryl; and at least one hydrogen is substituted with fluorine (see Hatakeyama, ¶ [0012]). Accordingly, the modified Compound 3 is expected to obtain the benefits of Hatakeyama.
The modified Compound 3 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified 3:
PNG
media_image5.png
367
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
I:
PNG
media_image6.png
205
306
media_image6.png
Greyscale
F:
PNG
media_image7.png
88
156
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modified Compound 3 reads on the claimed Formula I wherein:
Both T groups are R1 and both V groups are hydrogen (claim 3);
RI, RII, RIV, RV, RVI, RVII, RIX, and RX are each hydrogen, RIII and RVIII are each CF3 (claims 2 and 7);
R1 consists of a structure of Formula F;
n at each occurrence is an integer of 5;
R6 is at each occurrence hydrogen or a C1 alkyl (methyl) (claims 4-5); and
RXI is a C1 alkyl (methyl) (claim 9).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Hatakeyama teach the modified Compound 3 as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified 3:
PNG
media_image5.png
367
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modified Compound 3 fails to read on the claimed Formula I wherein RIII is selected from one of hydrogen, Me, tBu, and Ph. However, Kim does not limit the location of attachment for R3 in Formula I.
Given the general formula and teachings of Kim, 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 the modified Compound 3 wherein the CF3 of R3 is attached to the phenyl group in the ortho position rather than the para position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Kim’s Formula I in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the device of Kim in view of Hatakeyama and possess the properties taught by Kim and Hatakeyama. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The resulting modified Compound 3 reads on the claimed Formula I wherein RI, RII, RIII, and RIV are each hydrogen and RV is CF3.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights