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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 23 July 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1 and 18-20 have been amended.
Claim 8 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendments to claims 1 and 19-20 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et at. (US 2016/0343951 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et at. (US 2016/0343951 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN 111269239 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 111269239 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment has overcome the rejection.
While Applicant is correct that in the compound of the rejection multiple pyrrole rings are be formed by joining adjacent substituents correlating to the instant RA to RD. However, the joined substituents could be equated to the instant RA and RD being joined to form a pyrrole ring in addition to the instant RD and RC being joined to form a ring. Such a combination of adjoined substituents is not excluded in the final two lines of claims 1, 19, and 20.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et at. (US 2016/0343951 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwong et at. (US 2016/0343951 A1) (hereafter “Kwong”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”) set forth in the last Office action set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1) each of X1 to X8 as C; and 2) each of L1 to L4 being a direct bond in the reply filed on 10 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is 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 10 March 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 is being interpreted such that any compound comprising the structural moieties of claim 17 in any substitution pattern (including substituents forming a fused ring as permitted by claim 1) meets the current claim limitations of claim 17. Such an interpretation is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20: Formula II in each of claims 1, 19, and 20 appears to be missing substituent variables, making it unclear what structures are supposed to be in those places. Furthermore, the variable X is not defined, making the variable unclear. These issues render the claims indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the claims are being interpreted such that the recited formula II is the same as that of formula II of paragraph [0006] of the specification as filed.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 9-18: Claims 2-7 and 9-18 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 16 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.
Regarding claim 16: While claim 16 is not described as being amended, it appears to be different than claim 16 of the claim-set of 6 December 2022. In each of the structural formulas there appears to be missing substituent variables, making it unclear what structures are supposed to be in those places. Furthermore, the variables X are not defined, making the variable unclear. These issues render the claims indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the structural formulas are the same as those of paragraph [0093] of the specification as filed.
Finally, it is noted that the linker “L” that is part of the fused ring structure in the first structural formula was labeled as L1 in the claims of 6 December 2022.
Claim 17 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.
Regarding claim 17: While claim 17 is not described as being amended, it appears to be different than claim 17 of the claim-set of 6 December 2022. In each of the structural formulas there appears to be missing substituent variables, making it unclear what structures are supposed to be in those places. Furthermore, the variables X are not defined, making the variable unclear. Finally the claim describes a variable YA that is not present in the structural formulas; it is unclear to what this variable is referring. These issues render the claims indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the structural formulas are the same as those of paragraph [0094] of the specification as filed.
Claim 18 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.
Regarding claim 18: While claim 18 is not described as being amended, it appears to be different than claim 18 of the claim-set of 6 December 2022. In each of the structural formulas there appears to be missing substituent variables, making it unclear what structures are supposed to be in those places. Furthermore, the variables X are not defined, making the variable unclear. These issues render the claims indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted such that the structural formulas are the same as those of paragraph [0100] of the specification as filed.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN 111269239 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 17, and 19: Yang discloses an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {3rd to last line of p. 29 through 7th line of p. 30—device comprising Compound 19}.
The organic layer comprises the compound shown below {(3rd to last line of p. 29 through 7th line of p. 30—device comprising Compound 19), (p. 28, Compound 19)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where in the compound above, adjacent RA and RD are joined to form a pyrrole ring, and adjacent RD and RC are joined to form a pyrrole ring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 111269239 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Yang”) in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 20: Yang all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 19, as outlined above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 19 in that the organic light emitting device is comprised in a consumer product.
Yang does not exemplify a display device comprising the organic light emitting device of Yang described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Yang be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et at. (US 2021/0320263 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, and 16-17: Jung discloses the compound shown below {(paragraph [0069]: The compounds formula 2 of the disclosure of Jung are exemplified by Compounds C-1 to C-299.), (p. 106: Compound C-299)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
516
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compounds having the structure of formula 2 of Jung are useful as host materials for phosphorescent light emitters in organic light emitting devices {abstract; paragraphs [0004], [0012], [0029], and [0091]-[0096]}.
Jung does not teach that the compounds of Jung comprise a moiety having the structure of the instant Formula II.
Lee teaches materials for use in organic light-emitting devices as host materials {paragraphs [0008]-[0010], [0168], [0172], and [0178]}.
Lee teaches that compounds comprising the moiety shown below have good thermal stability {paragraphs [0050], [0167], and [0391]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
276
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The moiety shown above is similar to a phenyl-carbazole moiety with the only difference being that the substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole is further fused to the carbazole. Thus, fusing a substituent phenyl group of a phenyl-carbazole to the carbazole would yield the structure of Lee shown above.
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify one or more of the compounds of Jung such that the bonded phenyl group on the N atom of the carbazolyl moiety is fused to the carbazole portion, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a group known to provide compounds with good thermal stability, based on the teaching of Lee.
Regarding claim 15: Jung as modified by Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Jung does not exemplify a compound similar to one of the compounds shown above except for comprising an alkyl group.
However, Jung teaches that the tetraphenylene group of the compounds of Kwong can be substituted with an alkyl group {paragraphs [0021]-[0028], [0058]-[0061]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Jung by substituted an alkyl group onto the tetraphenylene structure of the compound(s) of Jung, based on the teaching of Jung. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claim 19: Jung as modified by Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Claim 1 differs from claim 19 in that the organic compound is comprised in the organic layer of the organic light emitting device.
Jung does not exemplify a specific device comprising any one of the compounds of Kwong shown above.
However, Jung teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0094]-[0096]}.
The organic layer comprises the compound of Jung as a host material for a phosphorescent emitter in the light-emitting layer {paragraphs [0094]-[0096]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Jung by using the compound as the host material for a phosphorescent emitter in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Jung, based on the teaching of Jung. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et at. (US 2021/0320263 A1) (hereafter “Jung”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (US 2002/0182441 A1) (hereafter “Lamansky”).
Regarding claim 20: Jung as modified by Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 19, as outlined above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 19 in that the organic light emitting device is comprised in a consumer product.
Jung does not exemplify a display device comprising the organic light emitting device of Yang described above.
Lamansky teaches the use of organic electroluminescent devices in display devices {paragraph [0139]}. Lamansky teaches that flat panel displays utilizing organic light emitting devices (which are organic electroluminescent devices) would have bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor {paragraph [0010]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic electroluminescent device of Jung be part of a display device, based on the teachings of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device with bright colors, wide viewing angle, low power requirements, broad temperature ranges, and thin form factor, as taught by Lamansky.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights