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 December 1, 2025. Claims 1, 8, and 10 were amended. Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. (US 2020/0119285).
No et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices with a composition of compounds for a layer of the device (see No et al. abstract and see par. 223 and Example Tables). A “first” compound is of formula 1 and a second compound is a carbazole-based derivative of formula 2 (see par. 9, 14):
PNG
media_image1.png
186
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Formula 1 encompasses instant formula 1 compounds (when deuterated – see par. 14) and Formula 2 encompasses instant formula 2 compounds.
With respect to instant claims 1, 5-7, and 9 instant formula 2 compounds, specific compounds of No et al. formula 2 are set forth and at least one listed compound is the following “2-1”, which is the same as instant “H2-1” of claim 9:
PNG
media_image3.png
226
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
( par. 137, page 62).
With further respect to instant claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 10 instant formula 1 compounds, No et al. teaches heterocyclic compounds according to Chemical Formula 1, which may be used as a host material in a light emitting layer (see par. 9, 15, 17). More specifically, a compound of No et al. Chemical Formula 1 includes at least specific compound #204 (see page 42), which is a positional isomer of instant compounds H1-215, H1-217, and H1-218 of claim 8:
PNG
media_image4.png
206
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Further, No et al. teaches Chemical Formula 1 compounds may include deuterium substitution (see par. 14). Per MPEP 2144.09, compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have formed deuterated positional isomers of compound #204 the same as instant formula 1 compounds H1-215, H1-217, and H1-218, because one would expect the positional isomer compounds to be functional materials having similar properties as #204 for use in a light emitting device with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of a success.
It further 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 mixture of materials as taught by No et al. formula 2 such as specific compound “2-1” and deuterated positional isomer compounds of formula 1 as discussed above, because the materials as discussed above are taught for the purpose of a composition in a layer of a light emitting device. One would expect to achieve a plurality of host materials comprised of at least two materials rendered obvious by No et al. as discussed above, which are also the same as compounds within the instant claims, for host material of a light emitting device with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 2, at least a deuterated positional isomer (as discussed above) of above shown No et al. compound #204 corresponds to instant 1-1. Further regarding claim 3, such a compound corresponds to including an instant HAr as substituted triazinyl. Further regarding claim 4, such a compound corresponds respectively to including a dibenzofuran group as a linking group.
Further regarding claim 5, at least above shown No et al. 2-1 corresponds to instant formula 2-1.
Further regarding claim 6, at least above shown No et al. 2-1 corresponds to instant A1 and A2 as phenyl.
Further regarding claim 7, the substituents are not required to be present and additionally, it is noted that No et al. teaches substituent groups at par. 13-14.
Further regarding claims 8 and 10, at least one listed compound in No et al. may be a deuterated positional isomer of compound #204, as discussed above (see No et al. par. 14).
Further regarding claim 9, at least one No et al. listed compound is “2-1” (see par. 137, page 62), which is the same as instant “H2-1”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1,2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the recited formula (1) compounds based on the No et al. teaching of a 3-linkage for a dibenzofuran group to the N-Het (triazine) group. The office submits one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been apprised of forming positional isomer compounds and would have expected positional isomer compounds to be predictably useful as a functional material of a light emitting device. Further note that any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, it is noted that the instant specification does not appear to set forth any showing that the specifically bonded formula 1 compounds now claimed are clearly unexpected and/or superior to compounds having a 3-linkage of a linking dibenzofuran to a triazine group (HAr).
Where a claimed improvement of a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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