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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 16-17 and 20 are amended, claims 21-24 are new, and claims 2, 5, 15, and 18 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-24 are pending.
The objection to the drawings as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejections of claims 2, 5, 15, and 18 as set forth in the previous Office action are moot because the claims are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-20 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.
The rejection of the claims 1, 3-4, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 and the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of the claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action is maintained.
The rejection of the claims 1, 3-4, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Groarke et al. WO-2024013709-A1 and the rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groarke et al. WO-2024013709-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of teachings of Kim et al. WO-2021020928-A2, see equivalent US-20230077439-A1.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on page 29 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 29 that dependent claim 6 (depending from claim 1) are also not anticipated by Kim.
Examiner's response – Kim discloses the compound 1-23 which corresponds to one of the compounds still recited in claim 6 (see numbered page 11 of the claims dated 06/03/2026).
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 28-31 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 with respect to the rejections as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument -- Applicant argues on pages 28-31 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
Examiner's response -- The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein the claimed organic compound is represented by one of formulae (2-1) to (2-13), (2-15), (2-17), and (2-18) and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of teachings of Kim et al. WO-2021020928-A2, see equivalent US-20230077439-A1.
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 6 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 6, the claim recites several chemical structures that do not meet one of formulae (2-1) to (2-13), (2-15), (2-17), and (2-18) as required by independent claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if these compounds may be selected to meet the claim limitations or not and therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 will be read as an independent claim.
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites several chemical structures that do not meet one of formulae (2-1) to (2-13), (2-15), (2-17), and (2-18) as required by independent claim 1. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, and/or for fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
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
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. WO-2021020928-A2, see equivalent US-20230077439-A1 referred to herein as "Kim-439".
It is noted that WO-2021020928-A2 is cited on the IDS of 08/19/2024.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-21, and 23-24, Kim-439 recites an organic light emitting device including an organic material layer having one or more layers provided between a first electrode and a second electrode (¶ [0370]), wherein the organic material layer comprises a compound of Formula 1 as a dopant and an anthracene-based compound as a host (¶ [0382]). The organic light emitting device displays light and is therefore a display device. Kim-439 recites that when an organic light emitting device is manufactured by including the compound, the organic light emitting device obtains high efficiency, low voltage, long-service life characteristics, and has high color gamut (¶ [0034]). Kim-439 recites specific examples of Formula 1 which meet the claimed formula (1) in paragraph [0365], including, for example,
PNG
media_image1.png
279
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 240).
Thus, the device of Kim-439 meets claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-21, and 23-24.
For example, the compound shown above is a compound of the claimed formula (2-18) wherein:
n1 is 1, n2 is 1, n3 is 1, n4 is in one case 1 and in the other is 2, and n5 is 4; and
R1 is a C4 branched alkyl group (a t-butyl group), R2 is a C4 branched alkyl group (a t-butyl group), R3 is a C4 branched alkyl group (a t-butyl group), R4 is in one case a C4 branched alkyl group (a t-butyl group) and in the other R4 is each a C4 alkyl group and the two R4 join to form a ring, and R5 are each a C1 linear alkyl group (a methyl group).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 (hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses compound 1-23
PNG
media_image2.png
135
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 9), which corresponds to one of the compounds in claim 6 (see numbered page 11 of the claims dated 06/03/2026).
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.
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 7-9, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. WO-2021020928-A2, see equivalent US-20230077439-A1 referred to herein as "Kim-439".
Regarding claims 7-9, 11, and 22, Kim-439 does not specifically exemplify a compound wherein two adjacent groups at the positions corresponding to claimed R1, R2, R3, and/or R5 and R1, R301, Cy3, and Cy4 in Formula 100 of Kim-439 form a six-membered aromatic ring or an aliphatic ring.
However, Kim-439 teaches that R1 and R301 in the Formula 100 may be bonded to an adjacent substituent to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring (¶ [0012]) and that Cy3 and Cy4 may be a ring in which two or more rings are fused (¶ [0014]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kim-439, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a six-membered aromatic ring out of two adjacent substituents together at the positions corresponding to R1, R2, R3, and R5 of the claimed formula, because Groarke teaches the variables may suitably be joined to form a substituted or unsubstituted ring. 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 a dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Kim-439 and possess the beneficial properties of high efficiency, low voltage, long-service life characteristics, and has high color gamut, taught by Kim-349. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
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 Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights