DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al (US 2019/0152985, cited on IDS filed on 8/12/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Suh et al discloses an organic light emitting device comprising the following compound (Abstract and Page 36):
PNG
media_image1.png
378
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
320
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 and X2 are both O;
L1 to L3 are each single bonds;
Ar1 is a phenyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C6 aryl group;
Ar2 is biphenyl group, i.e. a substituted C6 aryl group or a C12 aryl group;
R1 is hydrogen;
R2 is an unsubstituted C9 aryl;
m2 is one (1);
R3 is hydrogen;
m3 is two.
R4 is hydrogen;
m1 is four (4)
The difference between the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed is position of the aromatic amine group, i.e. the compound disclosed by the reference possesses the aromatic amine on the fused naphthyl group, while claims require the presence of the aromatic amine of the benzene ring. Thus, the compound disclosed by reference and that claimed are isomers - compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus, and the courts have held, as found in In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977), that compounds which are isomers “are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties”.
In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound disclosed in the reference and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Suh et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses an isomer of Chemical Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image3.png
242
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Isomers are compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus, and the courts have held, as found in In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977), that compounds which are isomers “are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties”.
In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound disclosed in the reference and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Suh et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses an isomer of Chemical Formulas 1A-1 to 1A-4. Isomers are compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus, and the courts have held, as found in In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977), that compounds which are isomers “are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties”.
In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound disclosed in the reference and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Suh et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group and Ar2 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group.
Regarding claim 5, Suh et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Ar1 is:
PNG
media_image4.png
40
68
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and Ar2 is:
PNG
media_image5.png
62
78
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Suh et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1, L2 and L3 are single bonds.
Regarding claim 7, Suh al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above the reference discloses an isomer of Compound 1-452:
PNG
media_image6.png
242
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Isomers are compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus, and the courts have held, as found in In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977), that compounds which are isomers “are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties”.
In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound disclosed in the reference and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Suh et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0018] – Figure 1):
PNG
media_image7.png
354
565
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where device comprises: an anode (2) facing the cathode (4); and a light emitting layer (3), i.e. an organic layer, disposed between the anode (2) and cathode (3), and where light emitting layer (3) comprises the disclosed compound ([0017]).
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Suh et al discloses that the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0017]).
Claims 8-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al (US 2019/0152985, cited on IDS filed on 8/12/2025) as applied to claims 1-7 and 14-15 above, and in view of Moon et al (US 2022/0131081).
The discussion with respect to Suh et al as set forth in Paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, Suh et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer, i.e. a composition, of the organic light emitting device comprises the disclosed compound, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting layer comprises the second compound as recited in the present claims.
Moon et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device where the light emitting layer comprises the following compound ([0006], [0048], and Page 7 – C-6):
PNG
media_image8.png
296
424
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
184
250
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where X3 is S and R5 is hydrogen. Ring A corresponds to:
PNG
media_image10.png
152
152
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R7 is hydrogen. R8 corresponds to Chemical Formula a:
PNG
media_image11.png
260
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z1 to Z3 are N;
L4 to L6 are single bonds;
Ar3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; and
Ar4 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl group.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 7 – C-4):
PNG
media_image12.png
258
232
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
184
250
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where X3 is S and R5 is hydrogen. Ring A corresponds to:
PNG
media_image10.png
152
152
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R7 is hydrogen. R8 corresponds to Chemical Formula a:
PNG
media_image11.png
260
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z1 to Z3 are N;
L4 to L6 are single bonds;
Ar3 and A4 are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
The reference discloses the organic light emitting device utilizing the compound possesses a long lifetime and high luminous efficiency properties.
Given that both Suh et al and Moon et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices, and given that Suh et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Moon, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Suh et al, thereby obtaining a composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Moon et al discloses compounds corresponding to Chemical Formula 2-VI:
PNG
media_image13.png
244
244
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Moon et al discloses compounds corresponding to Chemical Formula 2-VI:
PNG
media_image13.png
244
244
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Moon et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image14.png
258
232
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Chemical formula 2-VI-1:
PNG
media_image15.png
318
282
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compounds disclosed by Moon et al, Ar3 is an unsubstituted phenyl group and Ar4 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group; or Ar3 and Ar4 are unsubstituted phenyl groups,
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Moon et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
296
424
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Compound A-65 of the claims.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Suh et al discloses the following organic light emitting device ([0018] – Figure 1):
PNG
media_image7.png
354
565
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where device comprises an anode (2) facing the cathode (4); and a light emitting layer (3), i.e. an organic layer, disposed between the anode (2) and cathode (3), where light emitting layer (3) comprises the disclosed compound ([0017]).
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Suh et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Suh et al discloses that the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0017]).
Claims 1-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2023/0406862).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. an organic optoelectronic device, comprising the following compound (Page 14 – Compound 047):
PNG
media_image16.png
470
487
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
320
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
where:
X1 and X2 are both O;
L1 to L3 are each single bonds;
Ar1 is a phenyl group, i.e. an unsubstituted C6 aryl group;
Ar2 is biphenyl group, i.e. a substituted C6 aryl group or a C12 aryl group;
R2 is an unsubstituted C9 aryl;
m2 is one (1); and
R3 is hydrogen; and m3 is two.
The difference between the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed is that the compound disclosed by the reference does not possess a benzo-dibenzofuran group, i.e. the compound of the reference does not possess a second fused benzene ring as required by Chemical Formula 1A of the claims. However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to Formula 1 ([0011]):
PNG
media_image17.png
290
362
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where two (2) adjacent groups of R5 to R8 can join to form a C6 aromatic hydrocarbon ring ([0014]).
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound represented by one Formula 1A, 1B or 1C:
PNG
media_image18.png
250
300
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
252
276
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
232
300
media_image20.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound represented by one Chemical formula 1A, 1A-2, 1A-3, or 1A-4.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 is an unsubstituted phenyl group and Ar2 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Ar1 is:
PNG
media_image4.png
40
68
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and Ar2 is:
PNG
media_image5.png
62
78
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, L1, L2 and L3 are single bonds.
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the compound disclosed by the reference does not correspond to Compound 1-452:
PNG
media_image6.png
242
296
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
However, attention is directed to Formula 1 ([0011]):
PNG
media_image17.png
290
362
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where m can be zero (0) and R1 can be hydrogen ([0014]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses Compound 1-452 of the claims.
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic electroluminescent device ([0154] – Figure 1):
PNG
media_image21.png
218
401
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
where the device comprises an anode (200) facing the cathode (400); and an organic layer (300) disposed between the anode and cathode, where organic layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0200]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic layer comprises a light emitting layer, and the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0026]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the Background of the reference discloses that an organic light emitting device is a type of self-emission type display device and has advantages that the viewing angle is wide, the contract is excellent and the response speed is fast ([0003]). In light of this disclosure it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the organic light emitting device as a display with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2023/0406862) as applied to claims 1-7 and 14-16 above, and in view of Moon et al (US 2022/0131081).
The discussion with respect to Lee et al as set forth in Paragraph 7 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses a composition comprising the disclosed compound (Abstract). However, the reference does not disclose that the composition comprises the second compound as recited in the present claims.
Moon et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device where the light emitting layer comprises the following compound ([0006], [0048], and Page 7 – C-6):
PNG
media_image8.png
296
424
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
184
250
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where X3 is S and R5 is hydrogen. Ring A corresponds to:
PNG
media_image10.png
152
152
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R7 is hydrogen. R8 corresponds to Chemical Formula a:
PNG
media_image11.png
260
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z1 to Z3 are N;
L4 to L6 are single bonds;
Ar3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; and
Ar4 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl group.
Alternatively, the reference discloses the following compound (Page 7 – C-4):
PNG
media_image12.png
258
232
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Chemical Formula 2 of the claims:
PNG
media_image9.png
184
250
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where X3 is S and R5 is hydrogen. Ring A corresponds to:
PNG
media_image10.png
152
152
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where R7 is hydrogen. R8 corresponds to Chemical Formula a:
PNG
media_image11.png
260
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Z1 to Z3 are N;
L4 to L6 are single bonds;
Ar3 and A4 are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups.
The reference discloses the organic light emitting device utilizing the compound possesses a long lifetime and high luminous efficiency properties.
Given that both Lee et al and Moon et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices, and given that Suh et al does not explicitly prohibit other ingredients, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the compound as taught by Moon, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such compounds in the light emitting layer of the device disclosed by Lee et al, thereby obtaining a composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Lee et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Moon et al discloses compounds corresponding to Chemical Formula 2-VI:
PNG
media_image13.png
244
244
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Lee et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Moon et al discloses compounds corresponding to Chemical Formula 2-VI:
PNG
media_image13.png
244
244
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Lee et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, Moon et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image14.png
258
232
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Chemical Formula 2-VI-1:
PNG
media_image15.png
318
282
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Lee et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compounds disclosed by Moon et al, Ar3 is an unsubstituted phenyl group and Ar4 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group; or Ar3 and Ar4 are unsubstituted phenyl groups,
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Lee et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Moon et al discloses the compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
296
424
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding to Compound A-65 of the claims.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Lee et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee et al discloses the following organic electroluminescent device ([0154] – Figure 1):
PNG
media_image21.png
218
401
media_image21.png
Greyscale
,
where the device comprises an anode (200) facing the cathode (400); and an organic layer (300) disposed between the anode and cathode, where organic layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0200]).
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Lee et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee et al discloses that the organic layer comprises a light emitting layer and the light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0026]).
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Lee et al and Moon et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the Background of Lee et al discloses that an organic light emitting device is a type of self-emission type display device and has advantages that the viewing angle is wide, the contract is excellent and the response speed is fast ([003]). In light of this it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the organic light emitting device disclosed by Lee et al as a display device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights