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
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/12/2026.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites Formula II in which the phenyl groups attached to the nitrogen atoms each contain substituents of RI to RV. Claim 7 recites RI to RV are each independently as defined in connection with Formula I in claim 1, and claim 1 recites RI to RV are each independently selected from specific groups. Given that two RI, two RII, two RIII, two RIV, and two RV are present but given that RI to RV are each independently selected from specific groups, it is not clear whether the first RI to RV must be identical to or may be different from the second RI to RV, respectively. For example, it is not clear whether each instance of RI must be identical or if each RI may be different.
Formula II:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the first RI to RV may be different from the second RI to RV, respectively.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 7, it is not clear whether the first RI to RV must be identical to or may be different from the second RI to RV, respectively. If the first RI to RV may be different from the second RI to RV, respectively, then claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
However, if the first RI to RV must be identical to the second RI to RV, respectively, then claim 7 further limits the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being as being anticipated by Kim (US 2021/0403489 A1).
Regarding claims 1-7, 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 16 which includes a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, two hole transport layers, a light emitting layer including a host and Compound 2 as a dopant, an electron injecting and transporting layer, and a cathode (structure on page 90; Table 1 on page 94; ¶ [0350]-[0354]). Compound 2 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula I.
2:
PNG
media_image2.png
96
52
media_image2.png
Greyscale
I:
PNG
media_image3.png
205
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
F:
PNG
media_image4.png
88
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 2 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, and RIII and RVIII are R1 (claims 2 and 6-7);
R1 consists of a structure of Formula F;
n at each occurrence is an integer of 4 or 5;
R6 is at each occurrence hydrogen, a C1 alkyl (methyl), or a C4 alkyl (t-butyl) (claim 4); and
RXI is a C1 alkyl (methyl) (claim 9).
Kim teaches alternative compounds represented by Formula 1 including the compound below on page 13.
Kim’s compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
280
309
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kim’s compound reads on the claimed Formula I in the same way as described above with respect to claim 1 except wherein R6 is at each occurrence hydrogen or a C1 alkyl (methyl) (claim 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0403489 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches Compound 2 as described above with respect to claim 1.
2:
PNG
media_image2.png
96
52
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image6.png
184
378
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Compound 2 fails to read on the claimed Formula I wherein RIII is selected from one of hydrogen, Me, tBu, and Ph. However, Kim teaches in Formula 1 that n3 may be 0, r3 may be 1, and R3 may be an alkyl group such as t-butyl (¶ [0009]-[0016] and [0048]). Kim teaches examples of such compounds (as shown in the compound below on page 8) wherein n3 is 0, r3 is 1, and R3 is a t-butyl group.
Kim’s compound:
PNG
media_image7.png
49
49
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 substitute the substituent
PNG
media_image2.png
96
52
media_image2.png
Greyscale
with a t-butyl substituent
PNG
media_image7.png
49
49
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as shown in Kim’s compound on pg. 8, because Kim teaches the n3 may be selected as 0, r3 may be selected as 1, and R3 may be selected as t-butyl. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Kim and possess the benefits taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified Compound 2 reads on the claimed Formula I wherein RI, RII, RIII, and RIV are each hydrogen or tBu.
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