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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20205399.7, filed on 11/03/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/09/2023, 08/29/2025, 12/22/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 05/02/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
In a requirement for unity of invention dated 05/12/2026, Applicant was required to choose from
Group I, claims 21-34 and 36-41, drawn to a compound of formula (I) or formula (II), and
Group II, claim 35, drawn to a method of synthesizing a compound of formula (I) or formula (II).
The instant application also contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Species I: a compound of formula (I)
Species II: a compound of formula (II)
Wherein for each species, the one of the following subspecies must be selected:
Subspecies a: a low-molecular weight compound
Subspecies b: a high-molecular weight compound, and
Wherein for each subspecies, Applicant must also select one of:
m = 0, and E is not present, or
m = 1, and E is selected from the claimed Markush group.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 21-34 and 36-41, in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 35 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I of Group I, comprising Subspecies a, wherein m=0, is also acknowledged.
Claims 33, 36, 38, and 40 are also withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 21-32, 34, 37, 39, and 41 are examined herein.
Response to Amendment
In the preliminary amendment dated 05/02/2023, the claims, specification, and abstract were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 21-41 have been added.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-41 are pending in the application, of which claims 33, 36, 38, and 40 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Formulae I-A-1 through I-G-3, several formulae comprise variable ArL instead of ArL.
Compound 121 on page 73, compounds TEG, HTM-1, and HTM-2 on page 130, and compounds HTM-3 and HTM-comp on page 131 are low resolution and illegible.
Please correct this.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 21, the preamble of the claim is drawn to a compound of formula (I) or (II), but the formulae below the preamble are labeled with Formula (I) and Formula (II).
Please make these uniform.
With respect to claim 30, Examiner believes that the word “that” is supposed to be “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-29 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eckes et al. (US 2015/0069303 A1).
With respect to claims 21-29 and 31, Eckes discloses monomer Mo19.A (page 33), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant formula (I) when both of Ar1 are a C6 aryl (benzene) group, n is 0 and ArL is absent, m is 0 and E is absent, a, b, c, and d are each 1, and every instance of R1 is a C4 branched alkyl (t-butyl) group. Any open valence or remaining variable bears a hydrogen atom or is absent.
With respect to claim 32, Eckes teaches the compound of claim 21, and the compound also conforms to instant formula I-1-1, as pictured above.
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.
Claims 30, 34, 37, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckes et al. (US 2015/0069303 A1), as applied above.
With respect to claim 30, Eckes teaches the compound of claim 21, as discussed above.
Eckes also teaches the synthesis of a 2,7-dialkyl-substituted 4-bromo-9,9’-spirobifluorene (paragraph 0178) which can be subsequently reacted with a diarylamine (paragraph 0180) to produce the described compounds.
One such 2,7-dialkyl-substituted 4-bromo-9,9’-spirobifluorene is product Spi2 (page 29), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
374
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Eckes does not complete the synthesis by reacting Spi2 with a diarylamine, this product is effective in demonstrating that a compound analogous to the one instantly claimed, wherein c and d are 0, is clearly within the scope of Eckes and could at once be envisaged by the ordinary skilled artisan from the disclosure of Eckes (see MPEP 2131.02).
Eckes includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eckes being a lack of the final synthesis product being explicitly shown. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent, or lack thereof, from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim wherein c and d are 0 since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound for use in an organic light emitting device (OLED) which contains a compound with a triarylamine substituent in the ortho-position, which results in significant increase in the lifetime of the OLED (paragraph 0006), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 34, Eckes teaches the compound of claim 21, as discussed above.
Compound Mo19.A is derived from structural unit (IXd) (page 9), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
344
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Eckes also teaches that R is N(R1)2 (paragraph 0009, line 2), and R1 is an aromatic group with 6 carbon atoms (paragraph 0010, lines 3-4).
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of instant Formula (I-diamine-1).
Eckes includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eckes being a lack of the additional arylamine group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound for use in an organic light emitting device (OLED) which contains a compound with a triarylamine substituent in the ortho-position, which results in significant increase in the lifetime of the OLED (paragraph 0006), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claims 37, 39 and 41, Eckes teaches the compound of claim 21, and Eckes also teaches an OLED comprising a substrate, ITO (an anode), a hole-transport layer, an emission layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0233-0249), and the described compounds may be dissolved in toluene (a solvent) and used in the hole transport layer (paragraph 0251).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dissolve the compounds in a solvent and use them in the hole transport layer of an OLED with the claimed device structure, as taught by Eckes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights