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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed April 29, 2026, which amends claims 18 and 20 and cancels claims 1-3 and 5. Claims 4 and 6-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed April 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the Office action mailed January 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed April 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolohan et al. (US 2020/0168812) as set forth in the Office action mailed January 29, 2026. The applicant cancels claims 1-3 and 5; therefore, the claims are no longer pending.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed April 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (Chem. Eur. J. 2011 17, 10871-10878) in view of Kwong et al. (US 2016/0343951) as set forth in the Office action mailed January 29, 2026. The applicant cancels claims 1-3 and 5; therefore, the claims are no longer pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the aryls groups for R11-R14 can be joined or fused to form a ring) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Office points out that the compounds of Woloham read on the applicant’s claimed invention because the compounds do not read on formula VIII, as the claim only requires R5 to be H or D if R11-R14 to be an aryl group or heteroaryl. The claim does not indicate that R11-R14 to be fused to each other; therefore, the compounds of Woloham read on the applicant’s claimed invention.
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. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the applicant’s argument conjugation of the compounds in An is a core feature and that conjugation needs to extend over the entire molecule, the Office points out that An never teaches or discloses that the conjugation needs to extend over the entire molecule. An teaches that compound needs to be conjugated and asymmetric and An teaches that the compounds being asymmetric is the core feature and the driving force of the observed results. The Office points out that all the comparative examples in An have the same conjugation as the inventive compounds. This shows that An was interested in showing the results of the compounds being asymmetric over the compounds being conjugated. Given that An does not teach that conjugation needs to extend over the entire molecule, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument one would not be motivated to select PhDCzT as the compound to modify in An, the Office points out that from the teachings of Kwong one would be motivated to modify any of the compounds that comprise a phenyl group attached to another aryl or heteroaryl group. Given that one would modify any of the compounds that have a phenyl group directly attached to another aryl or heteroaryl group, PhDCzT would be selected and modified and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office points out that Kwong does not need to teach all the limitations of the claims or all the limitations of the prior art. The applicant’s have not shown that using the tetraphenylene group does not lead to an improvement in glass transition temperature. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument of unexpected results, the results presented are not commensurate in scope with the prior art or the claims. The applicant’s claims are directed to just compounds and the results presented are for the use of the compound in the device. It is unclear how the modification is affecting the properties of the compound. Also, the claims do not limit the structure of the electroluminescent device and allows the compound to be used in any layer of the device and with any other material. The results presented is to a specific device structure and does not cover the breadth of the applicant’s claimed invention. The Office points out that a small change in any of the compounds energy levels can have a significant affect on device performance depending on the other compounds used in the device. The Office points out that is unclear what the results would show if other compounds were used in the different layers of the device or if a different dopant. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that improving the glass transition temperature would not be necessary because An does not mention the glass transition temperature and the compounds have a melting point above 245 °C, the Office points out that just because An does not mention the glass transition temperature does not mean that the compounds do not have a glass transition temperature. The reference did not cite a glass transition temperature, but that does not mean one of ordinary skill in the art would not want to increase the glass transition temperature of the compounds of An. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolohan et al. (US 2020/0168812) (hereafter “Wolohan”).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 9-15, 19, and 20, Wolohan teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0033]). Wolohan teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a dopant (paragraph [0105]-[0112]). Wolohan teaches that the host material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
183
171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
178
170
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0104]). Wolohan teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in a consumer product (paragraph [0027]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (Chem. Eur. J. 2011 17, 10871-10878) (hereafter “An”) in view of Kwong et al. (US 2016/0343951) (hereafter “Kwong”).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 9-15, and 17-19, An teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, a cathode (page 10874 right column last paragraph). An teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a dopant (page 10874 right column last paragraph). An teaches that the host material can be
PNG
media_image3.png
202
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 10872 Scheme 1 and page 10874 Table 3).
An does not teach where the host material meets the applicant’s claimed formula.
Kwong teaches host materials comprising a tetraphenylene group (paragraphs [0048] and [0049]). Kwong teaches that tetraphenylene group can be referred to heavy benzene and the heavier material increases the glass transition temperature of the host and making the materials more suitable for electroluminescent devices (paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the host material of An, so the benzene group in
PNG
media_image3.png
202
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
was changed to tetraphenylene group as taught by Kwong. The motivation would have been to improve the glass transition temperature of the material and make it a better material for the electroluminescent device. This would lead to a compound with the following structure,
PNG
media_image4.png
288
237
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or make obvious where one of the carbazole groups comprises a nitrogen atom. The closest prior art Wolohan et al. (US 2020/0168812) (hereafter “Wolohan”) teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0033]). Wolohan teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a dopant (paragraph [0105]-[0112]). Wolohan teaches that the host material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
183
171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
178
170
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0104]). Wolohan nor the prior art teach or make obvious modifying the carbazole groups to contain a nitrogen atom; therefore, claim 16 comprises allowable subject matter.
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 ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights