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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 Amendment
The rejection of Claims 22, 23, and 38-41 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 Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 18-20, 24-27, 29-33, and 35-37 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 Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 19 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 Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 22 and 23 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 Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claim 35 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 Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 38-41 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 Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claim 27 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 as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 37 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 as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mun et al. (WO 2017/086706 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 18-20, 25, 27, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mun et al. (WO 2017/086706 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (WO 2017/086706 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (WO 2017/086706 A1) in view of Hayer et al. (US 2015/0322198 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 01/16/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 18-20, 24-27, 30-33, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 105669467 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication CN 105669467 A (herein referred to as “Huang et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Huang et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
192
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0006] of Huang et al.) where X1-2 = O or S (among others) ([0011]) and L = single bond or arylene ([0013]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 18 of Huang et al.) such that R2 = H, Y = S, Ar3 = aromatic ring system which has 18 aromatic ring atoms (fluoranthene), 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; alternatively, Ar3 = naphthyl substituted by R4 radicals (H and phenyl) which are joined to form a ring (to form fluoranthene). However, Huang 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 67 as disclosed by Huang 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 (to an adjacent position), 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 Huang et al.’s formula (in regards to the connection point of the dibenzothiophenyl group on “L”), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Huang et al. further discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: substrate (110), anode (12), hole-transporting layer (130), light-emitting layer (140), electron-transporting layer (150), electron-injecting layer (160), and cathode (170) (Fig. 1); its inventive compounds comprise any one of the electron-transporting, light-emitting, exciton-blocking, hole-transporting, and hole-injecting layers ([0028]); preferably, its inventive compounds comprise the hole-transporting layer ([0037]). The layers are formed via spin coating (involving dissolution of desired material in solvent) ([0048]).
18. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 105669467 A) as applied above and in further view of Hayer et al. (US 2015/0322198 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication CN 105669467 A (herein referred to as “Huang et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Huang et al. discloses the compound of Claim 18 as shown above. Huang et al. discloses its inventive compounds serve as materials for the light-emitting layer, hole-injecting/transporting layer, and others (but preferably the hole-transporting layer) ([0028], [0037]). The use results in good efficiency and long lifespan of the device ([0049]). However, Huang 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 Huang et al. to the polymers as disclosed by Hayer et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Huang et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive (hole-injecting/transporting) compounds results in a device with good efficiency and long lifespan.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. 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.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication CN 105669467 A (herein referred to as “Huang et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The closest prior art is provided by Huang et al. (CN 105669467 A), which discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
192
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0006] of Huang et al.) where X1-2 = O or S (among others) ([0011]) and L = single bond or arylene ([0013]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 18 of Huang et al.). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Huang 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 of the Ar3 group of Applicant’s formula (I-2).
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-18 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
21. 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