DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 07/28/26.
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
The rejection of Claims 18-20, 24-27, 30-33, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 105669467 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 105669467 A) in view of Hayer et al. (US 2015/0322198 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 25 and 36 are 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.
The claims, which are dependent on Claim 18, recite a scope of Ar3 which is not encompassed by the scope as defined in the parent claim.
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 27 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.
The claim, which is dependent on Claim 18, recites the further limitation that “the free positions on the benzene rings may each be substituted by an R1 radical” (page 22) which is broader than the scope of formula (I-2) as defined in the parent claim.
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 42 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.
The claim, which is dependent on Claim 18, recites numerous compounds which are not encompassed by formula (I-2) as recited in the parent claims. For example, notice the following Compound 40:
PNG
media_image1.png
146
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which comprises Ar2 that is not encompassed by formula (A). The Applicant should ensure that all compounds recited in the present claim are fully encompassed by compound formula (I-2).
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 § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 18-20, 24-27, 30-33, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2012/011756 A1).
Lee et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
148
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([13]) where X1-2 = O or S (among others) ([14]) and L1-2 = independently single bond or arylene ([18]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image3.png
106
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 7) such that R2 = H, Y = S, Ar3 = Applicant’s formula Ar3-1, and Ar2 = Applicant’s formula (A) (with L1 = single bond, Z2 = C or CH and R3 = aromatic ring system having 6 aromatic ring atoms (phenyl)) of Applicant’s formulae (I-2) and (I-2-2); Ar2 = Applicant’s formula Ar2-2 as recited in Claim 24. However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound that is fully encompassed by the Applicant’s formulae, particularly in regards to the connection point of the dibenzothiophenyl group on the benzene ring. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify 3 as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) such that the resulting compound fully conforms to the Applicant’s formulae as recited in the claims. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the connection point of the dibenzothiophenyl group on the benzene ring (from para to ortho relative to the position of the arylamino group), producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; additional motivation exists, including the fact that the modification merely involves the selection of one possible embodiment from a highly finite list as envisioned from the scope of Lee et al.’s formula (in regards to the connection point of the dibenzothiophenyl group on the L1 (or L2) linking group), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Lee et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: anode, hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, electron-injecting layer, and cathode ([156]); its inventive compounds any one of the hole-injecting and hole-transporting layers, resulting in a device with lower driving voltage and improved luminous efficiency ([8]-[9]). The compound is obtained from solvent ([71]).
12. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2012/011756 A1) as applied above and in further view of Hayer et al. (US 2015/0322198 A1).
Lee et al. discloses the compound of Claim 18 as shown above. Lee et al. discloses its inventive compounds serve as materials for the hole-injecting and/or hole-transporting layers, the use of which results in a device with lower driving voltage and improved luminous efficiency ([8]-[9]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose an oligomer, polymer, or dendrimer as recited in the claim.
Hayer et al. discloses polymers for use in an organic EL device (OLED) (Abstract; [0009]); the polymer contains additional structural units which influence the hole-injecting and/or hole-transporting properties of the polymer ([0027]-[0028]). Hayer et al. discloses such additional structural units to be triarylamines (among others such as carbazole derivatives) ([0036]). It would have been obvious to incorporate any of the inventive compounds as disclosed by Lee et al. to the polymers as disclosed by Hayer et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Lee et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive (hole-injecting/transporting) compounds results in a device with lower driving voltage and improved luminous efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 37 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is provided by Lee et al. (WO 2012/011756 A1), which discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
148
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([13]) where X1-2 = O or S (among others) ([14]) and L1-2 = independently single bond or arylene ([18]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image4.png
100
124
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 8) However, it is the position of the Office that neither Lee et al. singly nor in combination with any other prior art discloses any of the compounds as recited in the claim, particularly in regards to the nature and bonding positions of the substituent groups attached to the arylamino nitrogen atom.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art (pages 1-2) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights