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 September 9, 2025. Claim 2 is a cancelled claim. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 19-21 were added. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2019-0068271 is withdrawn due to the amendment received September 9, 2025.
The rejection of claims 7, 10, 12, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2019-0068271 is withdrawn due to the amendment received September 9, 2025.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobbs et al. (US 2013/0264560 A1) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 2.
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, 3, 6-9, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2019/132374) or under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by family equivalent document Lee et al. (US 2023/0371371 A1) (citations below are directed to the ‘371 document in English).
Lee et al. teaches Chemical Formula 1 compounds for a light emitting device (see abstract). At least the following example compounds are included #120 (page 24), #152 (see page 28), and #184 (see page 32), which have an ortho-bonding biphenyl group per instant claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11,19, and 20, respectively:
PNG
media_image1.png
234
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
228
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
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 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2019/132374) or family equivalent document Lee et al. (US 2023/0371371 A1) (citations below are directed to the ‘371 document in English).
The Lee et al. references are relied upon as set forth above.
As noted above, Lee et al. teaches Chemical Formula 1 compounds for a light emitting device (see abstract). At least example compounds are included #120 (page 24), #152 (see page 28), and #184 (see page 32), which have an ortho-bonding biphenyl group. Compounds of instant claims 4 and 5 are positional isomers of these example compounds. 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).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, there appears to be no example compound having both an ortho-phenyl group and also including a deuterium; however, Lee et al. teaches R groups of the general formula may include deuterium (see par. 19).
Regarding a light emitting device of claims 12 and 18, it is not seen where specific compounds #120, 152, or 184 were used to make an example device structure, but the Chemical Formula 1 compounds are taught as host for a device structure (see par. 335-345 and see par. 4-7). Regarding claim 13, a device includes an electron transporting layer (see par. 336). Regarding claim 16, the emitter Ir(ppy)3 is a phosphorescent complex (see par. 336).
While the features of claims 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 21 are not exemplified, 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 instant invention to form compounds and devices according to Lee et al. as described above wherein the resultant compound and device comprising the compound would also meet the limitations of instant claims 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 21. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobbs et al. (US 2013/0264560 A1).
Dobbs et al. teaches triazine derivatives for electronic devices according to Formula I where Ar1, Ar2, and Ar3 are the same or different and are according to Formula II (see abstract):
PNG
media_image4.png
164
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
148
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
In Formula II, R1 may include D or alkyl, R1 groups may join together, Q is the same or different in each occurrence and may be phenyl, naphthyl, or N,O, S heterocyclic or a deuterated analog, a is 1-5, b is 0-5, and c is 0-4. Not all Ar1 to Ar3 are the same (see abstract). More specifically, Q as a heterocyclic may be dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene (see par. 75 and 76) per instant X1-containing group. With respect to the ortho-biphenylene group of instant (1), there may be a biphenylene group including a group bonded as an ortho-biphenylene group when a is 2 and c is zero.
With respect to claim 3, a group of Dobbs et al. Formula I may be at least a Formula II where Dobbs et al. a is 1 (= phenyl), 2 (= biphenyl), or 3 (= terphenyl) with Q as dibenzothiophene or dibenzofuran and c as 1 (see abstract, par. 75, 76).
With respect to claim 4, a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene may bond at any ring location including a location corresponding to instant (1-1) (see par. 75-76). See also corresponding “Q” dibenzothiophene group in Compound A2 on page 5).
With respect to claim 4, a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene may bond at any ring location including a location corresponding to instant (1-2) (see par. 75-76).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, there may be a biphenylene group including a group bonded as an ortho-biphenylene group when a is 2 and c is 0. The phenyls are hydrogen when b is zero (see abstract).
With respect to claim 8, a Formula II group may be an unsubstituted phenyl when a is 1 or unsubstituted biphenyl when a is 2 and c is zero and b is zero (see abstract).
With respect to 9, Q may be dibenzothiophene when c is 1 (see abstract, par. 76, and group within Compound A2 on page 5).
With respect to claim 10, the compound of Formula I may contain deuterium (see abstract, par. 63).
With respect to claim 11, the material is for an electroluminescent device (see par. 52, 62, 122).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, a device comprises a light emitting layer and the material is contained between electrodes in a layer such as an electron transport layer (see par. 122, 160). With respect to claims 14 and 15, a functional layer may be more than one layer (see par. 171).
With respect to claim 16, the emitting material may be an organometallic complex (see par. 89-106, 156-157).
With respect to claim 17, a light emitting dopant may be a fluorescent type dopant (see par. 89, 107-120).
With respect to claim 18, an electronic device may be formed (see par. 5-7, 60, 122-159).
With respect to claim 19, R1 may include D or alkyl (see abstract).
With respect to claim 20, subscript variable b may be zero and R1 are not present as a substituent other than hydrogen (see abstract).
With respect to claim 21, at least R1 may include D and Q may be a deuterated analog (see abstract).
While Dobbs et al. does not appear to show an example compound according to Formula I where each Formula II is the same as claimed, as discussed above the definition of a Formula I includes groups that may be selected the same 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 instant invention to form a compound according to Dobbs as described above wherein the resultant compound and device comprising the compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Dobbs et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2025 with respect to Dobbs et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Dobbs et al. fails to specifically describe compounds as now recited. In response, the office submits notes that non-preferred embodiments can be indicative of obviousness (see In re Lamberti, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1976); In re Boe, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1976); In re Kohler, 177 USPQ 399 (CCPA 1973)), and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)). Applicant has not pointed to any evidence that the specifically bonded compounds as claimed result in unexpectedly improved results. In the absence of persuasive experimental evidence, the obviousness rejection over Dobbs et al. is respectfully maintained.
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