DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Europe on April 23, 2021, July 2, 2021, December 16, 2021, and March 16, 2022.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on September 11, 2023.
Claims 1 – 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on September 11, 2023, January 18, 2025, May 22, 2025, January 5, 2026, February 6, 2026, February 17, 2026, March 9, 2026, March 12, 2026, April 20, 2026, May 28, 2026, and July 14, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the organic molecule according to claim 1 4.” This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which of the claims, 1, 4 or 14, claim 5 is meant to depend from.
For examination purposes, claim 5 is interpreted as depending on any of the three claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (WO2022139513A1, using the provided English language translation).
As per claims 1 – 7, Kim teaches:
An organic molecule, comprising a structure represented by Formula I
PNG
media_image1.png
294
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
224
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A particular compound within the scope of Formula 1 taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image3.png
130
170
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in [0830] on page 532. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein two Ra groups are a C6 aryl, two Ra groups are a C4 alkyl and the remaining Ra groups are hydrogen; the R5 groups are alkenyl groups that have joined to form a ring. This compound is represented by Formula IIb in claim 2
PNG
media_image4.png
356
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and Formula III in claim 3
PNG
media_image5.png
284
278
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein Rb are C4 alkyl groups. The compound is represented by Formula IV
PNG
media_image6.png
286
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 4, where W is Ph and T, V, X and Y are hydrogen and Formula V in claim 5
PNG
media_image7.png
282
278
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, wherein RIII is Ph and RI, RII, and RIV are hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula VIb in claim 6
PNG
media_image8.png
338
286
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein exactly 4 RC substituents are present and are two tBu groups and two Ph groups as required by claim 7.)
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 8 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2022139513A1, using the provided English language translation) as applied to claims 1 – 7 above.
As per claims 8 – 10, Kim does not specifically teach the compound in a light-emitting layer. Kim teaches:
A composition comprising an organic molecule according to claim 1, and host material, which differs from the organic molecule ([0982 – 0984]: “In one embodiment of the present specification, the organic layer comprises a light-emitting layer, and the light-emitting layer comprises a compound represented by the chemical formula 1 as a blue fluorescent dopant of the light-emitting layer….In one embodiment of the present specification, the light-emitting layer further comprises a host compound.” The combination of the compound of formula 1 and the host is interpreted as the claimed composition.”)
Comprising 0.1 – 30% by weight of the organic molecule ([1049]: “In one embodiment of the present specification, when the light-emitting layer comprises a host and a dopant, the content of the dopant may be selected in the range of 0.01 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the light-emitting layer, but is not limited thereto.”)
Wherein the host material comprises a structure represented by Formula 4
PNG
media_image9.png
198
130
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches that the host compound is represented by Chemical Formula H
PNG
media_image10.png
218
294
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0988]). A specific example of a compound represented by Formula H taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image11.png
72
72
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([1017]), which reads on the claimed Formula wherein both Ar are a C6 aryl, one A1 is a C6 aryl and the other A1 are hydrogen.)
Kim teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Kim as Kim demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 11 – 14, Kim does not specifically teach the compound in a light-emitting device. Kim teaches:
An optoelectronic device, comprising the organic molecule wherein the optoelectronic device is an organic light-emitting diode ([1192]: “In one embodiment of the present specification, the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 may be included in an organic solar cell or an organic transistor in addition to an organic light-emitting diode.”)
The optoelectronic device comprising a host material comprising a structure represented by Formula 4
PNG
media_image9.png
198
130
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches that the host compound is represented by Chemical Formula H
PNG
media_image10.png
218
294
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0988]). A specific example of a compound represented by Formula H taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image11.png
72
72
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([1017]), which reads on the claimed Formula wherein both Ar are a C6 aryl, one A1 is a C6 aryl and the other A1 are hydrogen.)
The optoelectronic device comprising a substrate, an anode, a cathode, wherein the anode or the cathode are disposed on the substrate, and a light-emitting layer, which is arranged between the anode and the cathode and which comprises the organic molecule ([1096]: “FIG. 1 illustrates the structure of an organic light-emitting device in which a substrate (1), a first electrode (2), a light-emitting layer (3), and a second electrode (4) are sequentially stacked. In such a structure, the compound may be included in the light-emitting layer (3).”)
Kim teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Kim as Kim demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 15, Kim teaches:
A method for generating light having a wavelength from 440nm to 540 nm comprising providing an optoelectronic device and applying an electrical current to the optoelectronic device (Kim teaches that organic luminescence refers to the conversion of electrical energy into light using organic materials ([0003]). Kim teaches that the compound of Chemical Formula 1 emits light in the blue wavelength ([0984]). Therefore, applying electrical currents to the OLED of Kim would generate light in the claimed wavelength.)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights