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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2016 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 01/29/2026, which amends claims 1 and 5. Claims 1-8 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 01/29/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-8 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2015/0380662 A1) is withdrawn by the Office.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to compounds C-4 and C-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0380662 A1) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0172598 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses Compound 9 (page 17), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
182
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This first material (paragraph 0183) is derived from Kim Formula 1-1 (paragraph 0045), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
140
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim also teaches that A11 and A12 are selected as Formula 9-11 (paragraph 0046), which is pictured below, and that L11 is a naphthylene group (paragraph 0065, lines 1-3).
PNG
media_image3.png
114
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when L is naphthylene, all R characters are hydrogen atoms, and n and m are 0 so that R3 and R-4 are not present.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an amphiprotic material that includes a moiety having a hole transport property (a carbazole moiety), and a moiety having electron transport properties (an N-containing heteroaryl moiety). Therefore, when the first material represented by Formula 1-1 is included in a buffer layer of an organic light-emitting device, charge balance of the organic light-emitting device may be appropriately maintained, and the efficiency of the organic light-emitting device may be improved (paragraph 0184), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, Kim does not fairly suggest a 1,4-naphthylene group at instant L.
In analogous art, Lee teaches a heterocyclic compound having a chemical structure capable of performing various roles required in an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0005), which comprises at least one divalent naphthalene linking group (Chemical Formula 1 and paragraph 0031).
Lee teaches that a divalent naphthalene group has a wider LUMO orbital distribution compared to a mono-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring group such as phenyl, thereby lowering the LUMO energy level. Accordingly, a heterocyclic compound comprising a divalent naphthalene linking group has excellent electron transfer and injection abilities are superior. In addition, abundant pi-conjugated electrons on the naphthyl group itself contribute to an increase of charge mobility (paragraph 0369).
Lee teaches the example of a 1,4-naphthylene group (page 3 and Chemical Formula 1-12 on page 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preferentially select a naphthalene linking group, such as 1,4-napthylene, in place of the monocyclic hydrocarbon ring in the compound of Kim in order to form a heterocyclic compound which has a wider LUMO orbital distribution than its phenylene analogue, giving the compound a lower LUMO energy level, which also has superior electron transfer and injection abilities, and whose pi-conjugated electrons contribute to increased charge mobility, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 2, Kim in view of Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is unsubstituted.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Kim in view of Lee teaches the compound of claim 1 and n and m are 0 so that R3 and R4 are not present, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Kim in view of Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is identical to instant compound C-4.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Kim in view of Lee teaches the compound of claim 1, and Kim also teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound in the buffer layer, as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the compound in a buffer layer of an organic electroluminescent device, as taught by Kim.
With respect to claim 8, Kim in view of Lee teaches the device of claim 6, and Kim also teaches that the compound, which is derived from Formula 1-1 as discussed above, may be a host material in the emission layer of an electroluminescent device (paragraph 0257).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound as a host in the emission layer of an electroluminescent device, as taught by Kim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (KR 2014/0006708 A) – teaches carbazole analogues.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786