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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “selected from among”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recited “selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the formulas:
PNG
media_image1.png
180
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the variables are subscripted. However, the variables as recited in claims 1-2 and 4 are not subscripted. Applicants are advised to amend the claims to recite the variables in the format recited in the above formulas.
Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recited “selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-12 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation:
“wherein one of X1 to X10 is a carbon atom connected to A1”,
and the claim also recites the limitation:
“wherein the organic compound represented by Chemical Formula A has A1 bonded to position 1 of the dibenzofuran moiety thereof in such a manner that A1 is bonded to one of the carbon atoms of X6 in Chemical Formula A”,
which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-2, 4, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Cha et al (US 2018/0351111).
Regarding claim 1, Cha et al discloses the following compound (Page 73):
PNG
media_image2.png
494
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the organic compound represented by Chemical Formula A of the present claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
166
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where X1 to X10 are CR11 to CR20, where R11 to R15 and R17 to R20 are H; and R1 and R2 are unsubstituted C6 aryl groups. X6 corresponds to Chemical Formula A1:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
146
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where:
n is one (1);
L1 is a C6 arylene;
Ar1 is an unsubstituted biphenyl group; and
Ar2 is a fluorene substituted with two (2) methyl groups, i.e. C1 alkyls.
Regarding claim 2, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Ar1 is an unsubstituted biphenyl and Ar2 is a substituted fluorenyl.
Regarding claim 4, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above L1 corresponds to Structural Formula 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
50
80
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 8, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic light emitting device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image6.png
184
576
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where layer 30 is the first electrode ([0030]); layer 50 is the second electrode facing the first electrode ([0032]); and layer 40 corresponds to the recited organic layer comprising the disclosed compound ([0031], [0153], and [0163]).
Regarding claim 9, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, organic layer comprises a light emitting layer.
Regarding claim 10, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic light emitting device comprises a hole transport layer, and the hole transport layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0161]).
Regarding claim 11, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the layers of the device can be formed by vacuum deposition, i.e. a deposition process or a solution process ([0172]).
Regarding claim 12, Cha et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The recitation in the claims that the organic light emitting diode is used “for a device selected from among a flat display device, a flexible display device, a monochrome or grayscale flat illumination device, and a monochrome or grayscale flexible illumination device” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Lee et al discloses a light emitting diode as presently claimed, it is clear that the light emitting diode of the reference would be capable of performing the intended use presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
In light of the above, it is clear that Cha et al anticipates the presently recited claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
If rewritten as indicated above, claim 6 would be allowable over the “closest” prior art Cha et al (US 2018/0351111) and Lee et al (US 2012/0112174) for the following reasons:
Cha et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
494
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
and further discloses a general formula for such compounds as:
PNG
media_image7.png
222
342
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
The reference requires phenyl groups to be present on the fluorene-benzofuran core while the compounds recited in claim 6, e.g.
PNG
media_image8.png
334
574
media_image8.png
Greyscale
possess methyl substituents on the fluorene of the fluorene-benzofuran core. Accordingly, the reference does not disclose or suggest the compounds as recited in claim 6.
Regarding Lee et al, it is noted that the Declaration filled on 9/18/2025 demonstrates the criticality of bonding the amine group represented by Formula A1 to position X6 in Formula A. Specifically, the Declaration demonstrates in an improved T95 lifetime in compounds possessing the amine substituent at position X6 as compared to compounds possessing the identical amine substituent at positions X7 to X9. While Lee et al discloses bonding of the amine substituent at positions on the benzene ring, e.g.
PNG
media_image9.png
242
236
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
the reference does not disclose or suggest the criticality of the amine group at bonding position X6 as required by the present claims.
In light of the above, it is clear that Cha et al and Lee et al, either alone or in combination do not disclose or suggest the compounds recited in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejections set forth above.
In light of the 1.132 Declaration filed on 9/18/2025, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims over Lee et al is withdrawn. Specifically, the Declaration demonstrates the criticality of bonding the amine group represented by Formula A1 to position X6 in Formula A. Specifically, the Declaration demonstrates in an improved T95 lifetime in compounds possessing the amine substituent at position X6 as compared to compounds possessing the identical amine substituent at positions X7 to X9. While Lee et al discloses bonding of the amine substituent at positions on the benzene ring, e.g.
PNG
media_image9.png
242
236
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
the reference does not disclose or suggest the criticality of the amine group at bonding position X6 as required by the present claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786