DETAILED ACTION
Final
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/22/2025 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-4 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 5-13 are currently pending in the instant application.
The rejection of claims 1 and 5-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwan (KR 20170079353A) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20170003469 A (hereinafter Yong).
Regarding claim 1, Yong discloses an organic light-emitting compound used as hole inject or hole transport material of an organic light-emitting device or used as a doping material (See Abstract and [0001]). Yong discloses that the organic light-emitting compound having general Chemical Formula III and general Chemical Formula IV (See [0008], [0010], [0018], [0021]-[0023]):
PNG
media_image1.png
214
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Yong further exemplifies organic light-emitting compounds having general Chemical Formula III and general Chemical Formula IV wherein two X3-X8 are N which are non-adjacent and the remaining X3-X8 are CH or CF; A1 and A2 are NC\/Ar1 or Ar4\/Ar5. See Chemical Formulae 89-141 and 168-192 of Yong to name a few. For example:
Chemical Formulae 89
PNG
media_image2.png
157
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
Chemical Formulae 181
PNG
media_image3.png
174
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The organic light-emitting compounds of Yong are structural same as the claimed organic compound. Therefore, the organic light-emitting compounds of Yong inherently pose the same or substantially similar property, i.e., LUMO energy level, as claimed. It has been held by the court structurally similar compounds are generally expected to have similar properties (LUMO energy level). In re Gyurik, 596 F. 2d 1012,201 USPQ 552. Closely related homologues, analogs and isomers in chemistry may create a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon USPQ 2d 1 897,1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Payne 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979); In re Mills 126 USPQ 5 13 (CCPA 1960); In re Henze 85 USPQ 261 (CCPA 1950); In re Hass 60 USPQ 544 (CCPA 1944).
The reference specifically or inherently meets each of the claimed limitations in their broadest interpretations. The reference is anticipatory.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
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 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) above 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.
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 KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761