DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant’s filing dated October 1st, 2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2-8 are pending in the instant application. Acknowledgement is made of
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on October 1st, 2025. Acknowledgement is made of
Applicant's amendment of claim 2. Claims 2-8 read on the elected species and will be examined herein. Claim 1 remains withdrawn.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2020/001050 filed on January 22nd, 2020; and claims benefit of foreign priority of KR10-2019-0009730 filed on January 25th, 2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objections and/or Rejections and Response to Arguments
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated (Maintained Objections and/or Rejections) or newly applied (New Objections and/or Rejections, Necessitated by Amendment or New Objections and/or Rejections, NOT Necessitated by Amendment). They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Maintained Objections and/or Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing reference a previously set forth claim.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 does not depend upon a previously set forth claim, as the applicant has withdrawn claim 1. Claim 2 now depends on subsequent claim 3. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Applicant argues:
The applicant has amended claim 2 to remove the phrase “the substituted quinazolinyl, the substituted quinoxalinyl, the substituted benzoquinoxalinyl, the substituted dibenzoquinoxalinyl, the substituted benzoquinazolinyl, the substituted dibenzoquinazolinyl, the substituted benzofuropyrazinyl, the substituted benzothiopyrazinyl, the substituted benzofuropyrimidinyl and the substituted benzothiopyrimidinyl”. The applicant argues that the removal of this phrase overcomes the 35 USC § 112(d) rejection by eliminating inconsistencies between dependent claim 2 and independent claim 3.
Examiner's response:
The above argument has been carefully considered and has not been found persuasive.
Claim 2 does not depend from a previously set forth claim, it depends from subsequent claim 3.
MPEP § 608.01(n)(III) states: “When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should determine whether the claim complies with 35 USC § 112(d), which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, and include all the limitations of the previous claim. If the dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the examiner should reject the dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim.” See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
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 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 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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seung et al (KR 20170096769 A), cited in a previous Office Action; in view of Chen et al (J. Mater. Chem., 2009,19, 8112-8118), cited in a previous Office Action; further in view of Cho et al (WO 2015/084021 A1), cited in a previous Office Action.
Regarding Claims 2-5, Seung teaches Compound 1 (page 13, first compound), which is an electroluminescent compound of Formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
197
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X is O; wherein L1 is a direct bond; wherein Y1 and Y3 are both N; wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are both unsubstituted aryl groups, specifically phenyl; thus forming 2,6-diphenylpyrimidine.
Seung does not teach a substituted triazinyl.
Chen teaches the use of electron-deficient heteroarene-embedded small molecules has proved very useful for improving balanced charge injection and subsequent recombination in OLEDs. Triazine has an electron affinity (EA) larger than those of other typical electron-deficient heteroaromatic rings (e.g., pyridine, pyrimidine). As a result, triazine derivatives are electron-deficient heterocycles that are employed widely as active materials in OLEDs (page 8112 last paragraph; page 8113 first paragraph).
Cho teaches Compound H-3, an electroluminescent compound of Formula (1) with a substituted triazinyl (page 8 paragraph [39]):
PNG
media_image2.png
365
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When discussing preferential embodiments of Formula (1), Cho states the interchangeability of pyrimidine and triazine (page 7 paragraph [37]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to make a simple substitution of the 2,6-diphenylpyrimidine in Compound 1 of Seung with the 4,6-diphenyl-1,3,5-triazine in Cho’s Compound H-3; motivated by the predictable results as taught by Chen regarding triazine’s benefits in larger electron affinity and electron deficiency. Chen further teaches it is reasonably straightforward to structurally modify the 1,3,5-triazine core (page 8112 last line, page 8113 first line), exemplifying the simple nature of the substitution to form the instant electroluminescent compound, Compound C-123.
Applicant argues:
The Applicant argues that Seung et al teaches away from instant claim 3, where ETU of Formula 1-3 is required to be a substituted or unsubstituted triazinyl, because Seung recites “Y1 to Y3 are not all N”.
Examiner's response:
The above argument has been carefully considered and has not been found persuasive.
A reference teaches away only when it criticizes, discredits or discourages the claimed solution. Seung et al merely discloses a pyrimidine-containing embodiment and does not criticize or discourage triazine substitution, nor does it state that triazine would be unsuitable or inoperable. Seung’s disclosure of a pyrimidine embodiment reflects a design choice, not a technical warning against triazine. A disclosure of a preferred embodiment does not constitute teaching away.
"[T]he nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
"[A] reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed." In re DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Applicant argues:
The applicant argues that Cho et al discloses compounds that differ structurally from the claimed compounds, including differences in heteroatom identity, linkage positions and the presence of additional aromatic rings.
Examiner's response:
The above argument has been carefully considered and has not been found persuasive.
The rejection is based on a combination of references, each relied upon for distinct teachings, and not on Cho et al. alone.
As set forth in the previous Office Action, Seung et al. teaches Compound 1, an electroluminescent compound comprising a 2,6-diphenylpyrimidine core. Cho et al. teaches Compound H-3, an electroluminescent compound comprising a 4,6-diphenyl-1,3,5-triazine core; and expressly teaches the interchangeability of pyrimidine and triazine cores. Chen et al. teaches that triazine derivatives are well known electron deficient heterocycles providing predictable electronic advantages and are routinely substituted for pyrimidine cores in organic electronic molecules.
These teachings provide a clear design incentive and reasonable expectation of success, satisfying the motivation requirement of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The applicant has not identified any technical barrier or incompatibility that would negate this motivation or discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from making the claimed substitution.
Regarding claim 6, As noted in the above rejection, the teachings of Seung, Chen and Cho would result in the instant compound, Compound C-123. Seung further teaches a hole transporting layer containing a compound of Formula (1) (claim 13), this reads on an organic electroluminescent material as per the instant specification (page 3 paragraph [22]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to take the combined the teachings of Seung, Chen and Cho with instant Compound C-123 and further apply them to Seung’s teaching in an organic electroluminescent material via a hole transporting layer.
Regarding claims 7-8, As noted in the above rejection, the teachings of Seung, Chen and Cho would result in the instant compound, Compound C-123. Seung further teaches an organic light emitting device wherein the electron transport layer contains the electroluminescent compound of Formula (1) (Claim 14). An electron transport layer reads on an electron transport zone as per the instant specification (page 31 paragraph [189]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to take the combined the teachings of Seung, Chen and Cho with instant Compound C-123 and further apply them to Seung’s teaching of an organic light emitting device wherein the electron transport layer contains the electroluminescent compound of Formula (1).
Taken together, all of this would result in the compound, material and device of instant claims 2-8 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Claims 2-8 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
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 CHRISTOPHER L JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 08:00AM - 5:00PM EST with Flex on Fridays.
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, Renee Claytor can be reached on (571) 272-8394. 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.
/C.L.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691