DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received on July 28, 2026. Claims 1-18, 20-28, 42-65, and 67-69 are cancelled claims. Claims 19, 36, and 66 were amended. Claims 19, 29-41, 66, 70, and 71 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 19, 28-41, and 65-69 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendment received July 28, 2026.
Previous rejection(s) over now cancelled claims are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 70 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 70 continues to contain many chemical structures that are not printed clearly. For instance, see Formula 6 where the compound is faintly printed and heteroatoms and bonding lines are not legible. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 66, 70, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe et al. (US 2009/0131673 A1).
Regarding compounds of instant claim 19, Tanabe et al. teaches compounds for an organic light emitting device according to formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
277
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see paragraph [0008]).
In the formula I, any one of R81 to R88, respectively, may be selected as substituted aryl per instant -L2-Q2 including R86 or R83 and either of R84 or R85, respectively, may be heteroaryl per instant -L1-Q1 (see par. 8, par. 67 heteroaryl definition, par. 64 aryl definition; see also claim 1 definitions on pages 50-51). A substituted aryl may comprise the substituent as G, which may be E as heteroaryl (see claim 1, pages 50-51). Par. 67 specifically defines heteroaryl groups to include triazine. Substitutions are taught in par. 70.
Regarding claim 19, groups R84 and R86 may be the required groups, respectively, as discussed above (see par. 8, par. 67, par. 54).
Regarding claims 19 and 70, the group of Formula I taught by Tanabe (see par. 8) is a dibenzofuran group as shown in instant II of claim 19, respectively, or core groups of claim 70.
Regarding claim 29, carbazole or triarylamine group substitution is not required (see par. 8).
Regarding claim 30, no “hole transporting groups” are required for a Formula I compound (see par. 8).
Regarding claim 32, the material may be used in combination with other functional material such as light emitting material (see par. 102).
Regarding claim 34, the material may be dissolved or dispersed in solvent (see par. 107).
Regarding claim 36, the formula I compounds may be synthesized by coupling reaction(s) (see par. 112-168).
Regarding claims 38 and 71, the material is used in a light emitting device (see par. 109).
Regarding claim 39, a photoreceptor, solar cell, or organic EL device may be formed among others (see par. 110).
While Tanabe does not set forth an exemplified compound of the Formula I of claim 19 including the specific heteroaryl groups per instant Q1 and Q2 on a dibenzofuran core at the respective bonding positions of the dibenzofuran core per instant Formula II or compounds of claim 70, Tanabe Formula I is defined to include the instant required groups on a dibenzofuran that may be at bonding positions as claimed. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a Formula I material of the reference wherein resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve function Formula I compounds within the disclosure of Tanabe for an operational light emitting device with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 70, paragraph 67 specifically defines heteroaryl groups to include triazine as discussed above.
Regarding claims 66 and 70, an aryl group (see par. 8) per a linking group L2 may be phenylene (see par. 64).
Claims 31, 33, 35, 37, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe et al. (US 2009/0131673 A1) ) in view of Parham et al. (US 2012/0223276).
Tanabe et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Tanabe et al. teaches the dibenzofuran compounds may be used as host material (see par. 86). Regarding instant claim 31 and the recitation of “An oligomer, polymer, or dendrimer comprising one or more compounds…”, primary reference Tanabe et al. does not expressly teach that the material of Formula I may be bonded as part of an oligomer, polymer or dendrimer compound structure. In analogous art, Parham ‘276 teaches a heterocyclic material used as a matrix (host) material in an organic electroluminescent device may be bonded to a polymer, oligomer or dendrimer structure (see Parham-‘276, par. 76-79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a polymer, dendrimer or oligomer structure using Formula I compounds as described by Tanabe et al., because one would expect a polymer, oligomer, or dendrimer bonded to the Formula I compound(s) to result in similarly useful light emitting layer material for an organic electroluminescent device as material in the form of polymeric, oligomeric or dentrimeric matrix material as taught by Parham ‘276. One would expect to achieve functional polymers, oligomers or dendrimers bonded to a Formula I compound as disclosed within the prior art references with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Tanabe et al. teaches Formula I material may be used in combination with other functional material such as light emitting material (see par. 102).
Regarding claim 34 and 35, the Tanabe et al. formula I material may be dissolved or dispersed in solvent (see par. 107).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, the Tanabe et al. formula I compounds may be synthesized by coupling reaction(s) (see par. 112-168). In addition, secondary reference, Parham, teaches a Suzuki coupling synthesis method of joining a heterocycle radical in a coupling reaction with an electron transporting group (see Parham page 117, par. 147). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a known type of coupling reaction as disclosed by Parham in forming formula I compounds as taught by Tanabe, because one would expect known coupling reaction synthesis steps resulting in desired final product compounds in solution to be similarly useful in forming compounds as taught within Tanabe formula I with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 40 and 41, the Tanabe formula I compounds are part of an organic electroluminescent device (par. 109-110).
Claims 19, 29-30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 66, 70, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyatkin et al. (US 2016/0329502 A1).
Dyatkin et al. teaches OLED organic compounds with two triazine rings attached to an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system core (see abstract). More specifically, compounds are according to Formula I (see par. 17), which read upon instant formula II compounds of independent claim 19:
PNG
media_image2.png
65
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A and B may each be nitrogen-containing group such as the following (see par. 18):
PNG
media_image3.png
105
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
R1, R2 may include hydrogen, aryl, or heteroaryl (see par. 19) and the triazine group is the same as instant Q-18 group of instant claim 19. Aryl and heteroaryl are further discussed at par. 48 and 49.
L1 and L2 are defined as including aryl group (see par. 20) and n and m are each 0 to 3. Note that one of n or m may be 1 while the other is selected as zero. Further note that aryl is defined as at least phenyl per instant claim 66.
The core “Z” group of Formula I may be dibenzofuran derivatives thereof (see par. 23) with various bonding locations upon the core such as the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
84
124
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While it is not seen where an example formula I compound the same as instant formula (II) is set forth in Dyatkin et al., given the teachings of the reference as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form material of the reference defined formula I wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compound for an operational device within the disclosure of Dyatkin et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 19 and 70, “Z” groups within par. 23 as discussed above meet the bonding location requirements of a core group according to claims 19 and 70.
Regarding claim 29, Dyatkin et al. formula I compounds described above do not require a carbazole or triarylamine group be present.
Regarding claim 30, the groups of a Dyatkin et al. formula I as described above are not considered to have a “hole-transporting” group.
Regarding claim 32, Dyatkin et al. teaches the compounds of formula I may be used in combination with host material in a light emitting layer (see par. 127). Further, Dyatkin et al. teaches the material of formula I is used in an organic layer of a device and may be used in combination with other functional materials (see par. 69-72, 80-81, and claim 10 on page 91).
Regarding claim 34, compounds of formula I are in solvent at the end of the synthesis process (see par. 119).
Regarding claim 36, a method for forming compounds of formula I includes a step of joining an electron-transport group (i.e., a Dyatkin nitrogen-containing group A and/or B) to the core “Z” group of formula 1 (see par. 118).
Regarding claims 38, 39, and 71, the compounds are part of an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract and claim 9 at page 85).
Claims 31, 33, 35, 37, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyatkin et al. (US 2016/0329502 A1) in view of Parham et al. (US 2012/0223276).
Dyatkin et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding instant claim 31 and the recitation of “An oligomer, polymer, or dendrimer comprising one or more compounds…”, primary reference Dyatkin et al. does not expressly teach that the material of Formula I may be bonded as part of an oligomer, polymer or dendrimer compound structure. In analogous art, Parham ‘276 teaches a heterocyclic material used as a matrix (host) material in an organic electroluminescent device may be bonded to a polymer, oligomer or dendrimer structure (see Parham-‘276, par. 76-79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a polymer, dendrimer or oligomer structure using Formula I compounds as described by Dyatkin et al., because one would expect a polymer, oligomer, or dendrimer bonded to the Formula I compound(s) to result in similarly useful as matrix (host) material for an organic electroluminescent device as material in the form of polymeric, oligomeric or dentrimeric matrix material as taught by Parham ‘276. One would expect to achieve functional polymers, oligomers or dendrimers bonded to a Formula I compound as disclosed within the prior art references with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Dyatkin et al. teaches the compounds of formula I may be used in combination with host material in a light emitting layer (see par. 127). The material is used in an organic layer of a device and may be used in combination with other functional materials (see par. 69-72, 80-81, and claim 10 on page 91).
Regarding claim 35, Dyatkin compounds of formula I are in solvent at the end of the synthesis process (see Dyatkin par. 119). Regarding claim 37, a method for forming compounds of Dyatkin formula I includes a step of joining an electron-transport group (i.e., a nitrogen-containing group A and/or B) to the core “Z” group of formula 1 (see Dyatkin par. 118). In addition, secondary reference, Parham, teaches a Suzuki coupling synthesis method of joining a dibenzothiophene radical in a coupling reaction with an electron transporting group (see page 117, par. 147). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a known type of coupling reaction as disclosed by Parham in forming formula I compounds as taught by Dyatkin, because one would expect known coupling reaction synthesis steps resulting in desired final product compounds in solution to be similarly useful in forming compounds as taught within Dyatkin formula I with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 40 and 41, the Dyatkin compounds are part of an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract and claim 9 at page 85).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 19 states clearer structures in claim 70 have been presented. The office notes that claim 70 was not amended and continues to recite structures that are not printed clearly.
With respect to an obviousness rejection over Tanabe, applicant argues Tanabe recites a large number of possible compounds. While a large number of possible compounds may be within the definition of Tanabe’s formula, the office submits Tanabe does not teach away from compounds defined to have the same groups as recited compounds. Applicant has somewhat narrowed the scope of recited compounds in the claim amendment, but applicant has not overcome an obviousness rejection as there is no showing of unexpected, superior results commensurate in scope with the recited compounds.
Similarly, with respect to an obviousness rejection over Dyatkin, applicant argues Dyatkin recites a large number of possible compounds. While a large number of possible compounds may be within the definition of Dyatkin’s formula, the office submits Dyatkin does not teach away from compounds defined to have the same groups as recited compounds. Applicant has somewhat narrowed the scope of recited compounds, but applicant has not presented a showing unexpected, superior results commensurate in scope with the recited compounds.
MPEP 2123 sets forth, “"[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights