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
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 12/31/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4-16 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (US20140231769) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (US2018/0053901) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/31/2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-16 based upon Nishimura et al. (US20140231769)
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/31/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 10-12 based upon Yoshida et al. (US2018/0053901) as set forth in the last Office action because the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness shows in the Declaration is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). While the claims encompass compounds represented by general formula 1, the evidence of nonobviousness consisted of only one compound (1-246) is not sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compounds that fall within the scope of the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.
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, 2, 4-16 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.
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ 2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “when two of Y1 to Y5 are Chemical Formula B in which Xa is NRy, and Chemical Formula B in which Xa is NRy is substituted with Y2 and Y4, at least two among R15 to R18 of Chemical Formula B in which Xa is NRy, which is substituted with Y2, are bonded to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aromatic hydrocarbon ring or a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C60 heteroring”. It is unclear what the italicized claim limitations mean.
Claim 1 also recites “when two of Y1 to Y5 are Chemical Formula B in which Xa is NRy, and Chemical Formula A-1-1 or Chemical Formula A-1-2, Chemical Formula A-1-1 or Chemical Formula A-1-2 above is substituted with Y2, and Chemical Formula B in which Xa is NRy is substituted with Y4, Chemical Formula A-1-2 above substituted with Y2” . It is unclear what the claim limitation means.
Claim 4 recites Chemical Formula B-1-1 and B-1-2, which includes the R100 and R101 groups. These groups previously present as substituents in Chemical Formula A-1-1 or Chemical Formula A-1-2.
Claim 5 discloses these compounds that are not meet the requirements of claim 1: compounds 1-1 to 1-150, 1-267-1-270, 1-272, 1-273, 1-275, 1-276, 1-280, and 1-301 to 1-303.
Claims 2, 3, 6-16 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (US2018/0053901).
Regarding claims 1, 3, Yoshida discloses the following compounds that reads on the claimed formula (1). See page 18.
PNG
media_image1.png
481
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6, 10-12, Yoshida discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode provided opposite to the first electrode; and one or more organic material layers , which comprises a light emitting layer, provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein and one or more organic material layers comprise the compound of claim 1 (Fig. 1, Abstract, and para 0135-138).
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anemian et al. (WO2017/025164).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 Nishimura discloses the following compounds that reads on the claimed formula (1), specially formula 1-260 of claim 5. See pages 24.
PNG
media_image2.png
149
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
242
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 10-12, Anemian discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode provided opposite to the first electrode; and one or more organic material layers , which comprises a light emitting layer, provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein and one or more organic material layers comprise the compound of claim 1 (para 0119-123 and 0226).
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.
Claims 7-9, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anemian et al. (WO2017/025164) as applied above, further in view of Nishimura et al. (US20140231769).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 13, Anemian discloses an organic light emitting device as described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Anemian further discloses that it is preferred to use the compound of claim 1 in combination with another matrix compound (para 0125). Anemian does not disclose the organic material layer further comprising the claimed compound of formula (2). Nishimura discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode provided opposite to the first electrode; and one or more organic material layers , which comprises a light emitting layer, provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, and one or more organic material layers comprise the following compounds that read on the claimed formula (2). See pages 170, 172, 173, and 175. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the compounds taught by Nishimura as the matrix compound in the organic material layer of Anemian, with a reasonable expectation of producing an organic light emitting device with improvements relating to lifetime, voltage and power efficiency. “The combination of familiar [components] according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). Obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
PNG
media_image4.png
266
235
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
293
216
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
283
233
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
228
239
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
300
196
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
247
219
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura discloses wherein Rc and Rd are hydrogen (para 0169-173).
Regarding claim 14, Anemian discloses a weight ratio of compound of claimed formula (1) and compound of claimed formula (2) is 1:10 to 10:1 (para 0124- 0125- convert vol% to weight% ratio would have been within the purview of a person skilled ordinary in the art).
Regarding claim 15, Anemian discloses a method for manufacturing an organic light emitting device, the method comprising the steps of preparing a substrate; forming a first electrode on the substrate; forming one or more organic material layers on the first electrode; and forming a second electrode on the organic material layer, wherein the step of forming the organic material layer comprises a step of forming one or more organic material layers using the organic material layer composition according to claim 13 (para 0141, examples).
Regarding claim 16, Anemian discloses the step of forming the organic material layer is forming the organic material layer using a thermal vacuum deposition method by premixing the compounds (para 00124-125, 0148).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 regarding Yoshida have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Groups Y3 and (Y1 or Y5) disclose in formula 45 of Yoshida fall within the scope of the claimed formula A-1-1 and A-1-2. Therefore, it meets the condition of when Y1 is represented by formula A-1-1, one of the rest or Y3 is represented by formula A-1-2.
Claims 1, 2, 4-16 remain unpatentable for the reasons of record.
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 HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
5/5/2026
Prosecution Insights