DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 26, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment dated May 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 22-25 were added. Claims 2, 16, and 17 are canceled claims. Claims 1-15 and 18-21 were amended. Claims 1, 3-15, and 18-25 are pending.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed May 26, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections now presented in this office action. See response to arguments section in this office action.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 19, and 20 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 (US 2023/0371371 A1) is withdrawn in view of the May 26, 2026 response.
The rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 21 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 (US 2023/0371371 A1) is withdrawn in view of the May 26, 2026 response.
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobbs et al. (US 2013/0264560 A1) is withdrawn in view of the May 26, 2026 response.
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, 6-8, 11, and 21-24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mun et al. (WO 2019/190101 A1) or under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mun et al. (WO 2019/190101 A1) or family equivalent document US 2021/0028370 A1 (citations below are directed to the English language document US 2021/0028370 A1).
(With respect to the 35 102(a)(1) rejection, applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.)
Mun et al. discloses compound 6-16 for a light emitting device (see page 115):
PNG
media_image1.png
278
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 21-24, the above compound 6-16 meets the limitations of claim 1 instant formula 1 where X1 is oxygen, n is 1, p is 1, q and r are zero, L1 is unsubstituted para-phenylene, and R12 is aryl of 6 ring carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 3, in above 6-16, a phenylene corresponds to instant L1 and the L2 and L3 are not present (q and r as zero).
Regarding claim 6, in above 6-16, corresponding R6 to R9 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 7, in above 6-16, corresponding R1 to R9 are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 8, in above 6-16, corresponding R10 to R14 correspond to hydrogen or phenyl.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1).
Lee et al. teaches the following example compound H-2-164, which anticipates instant Formula 1 (see page 27, par. 128) when L1 is naphthylene:
PNG
media_image2.png
170
152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The compound anticipates a compound of claims 1, 6-8, 11, 21, 22, and 24.
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, 3-12, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (WO 2019/190101 A1) or family equivalent document US 2021/0028370 A1 (citations below are directed to the English language document US 2021/0028370 A1).
Mun et al. teaches compounds of Formula 2 (see par. 13):
PNG
media_image3.png
336
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Mun et al. Formula 2 defines X2 to include O or S (see par. 51) per instant X1, L4 to include C6-C60 arylene or single bond and Ar5 to include C6 to C60 aryl (par. 447, 48) per instant biphenyl group, L5 to include C6 to C60 arylene including para-phenylene per instant L1, L2, and/or L3 groups (see par. 48 and corresponding group within Formula 2 compound “6-16” on page 115), L3 as single bond or arylene and Ar6 as C6 to C60 aryl (see par. 47-48) per instant R10 to R14 containing phenyl ring. Note that Mun et al. Formula 2 at least group -L4-Ar5 may be an unsubstituted ortho-biphenyl group (see par. 47-48) as required by instant formula 1 as at least compound “6-16” shows this group corresponding to the general Mun et al. Formula 2 (see page 115 compound “6-16” groups). Notice that the L5 bond to the dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene group (i.e., X2-containing ring) may bond at any location corresponding to instant a, b, c, or d locations as the bonding line is draw into the central portion of the ring.
Regarding claims 1 and 21-25, the definitions explained above for Formula 2 meet the requirements of an instant Formula 1 compound of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, above Mun et al. Formula 2 L5 group meets the claim requirement (see par. 48)
Regarding claim 4, above Mun et al. Formula 2 shows that the dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene group (i.e., X2-containing ring) may bond at a location corresponding to instant “a” location as the bonding line is draw into the central portion of the ring.
Regarding claim 5, above Mun et al. Formula 2 shows that the dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene group (i.e., X2-containing ring) may bond at a location corresponding to instant “c” location as the bonding line is draw into the central portion of the ring.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 19, and 20, above Mun et al. Formula 2 at least group -L4-Ar5 may be an unsubstituted ortho-biphenyl group (see par. 47-48). Note that Mun et al. Formula 2 at least group -L4-Ar5 may be an unsubstituted ortho-biphenyl group (see par. 47-48) as required by instant formula 1 as at least compound “6-16” shows this group corresponding to the general Mun et al. Formula 2 (see page 115 compound “6-16” groups).
Regarding claim 8, above Mun et al. Formula 2 defines at least Ar6 as C6 to C60 aryl (see par. 47-48) per instant R10 to R14 containing phenyl ring.
Regarding claim 9, above Mun et al. Formula 2 defines X2 to include S (see par. 51).
Regarding claim 10, at least R1 to R3 groups of groups for the Formula 2 may include deuterium (see par. 70).
Regarding claim 11, Mun et al. Formula 2 is for a light emitting device (see par. 12-14).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Mun et al. teaches a device including a Formula 2 compound in an organic layer of the device (see par. 137-138, 144).
While Mun et al. does not appear to show all possible Mun et al. Formula 2 compounds as example compounds meeting instant Formula 1 as claimed, as discussed above the definition of a Formula 2 compound includes groups that may be selected the same as claimed. Given the teachings of Mun et al., 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 Mun et al. 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 Mun et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (WO 2019/190101 A1) or family equivalent document US 2021/0028370 A1 (citations below are directed to the English language document US 2021/0028370 A1) in view of Dobbs et al. (US 2013/0264560 A1).
Mun et al. is relied upon as set forth above for the rejections of claims 1 and 12.
Mun et al. teaches Formula 2 triazine compounds as part of a light emitting layer of a light emitting device structure (par. 137-138, 144), but appears silent on the further layer features of claims 13-15. In analogous art, Dobbs teaches triazine derivatives for electron transport material of a layer (see par. 160) and also that functional layers may be made of more than one layer (see par. 171). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used triazine derivatives as taught by Mun et al. in a device structure having one or more electron transporting layers, because use of triazine derivatives and multiple functional layers is taught by Dobbs as providing an operational light emitting device structure. One would expect to achieve a light emitting device structure comprising materials within the teachings of Mun et al. and Dobbs et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1, 3-15, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1).
Lee et al. teaches compounds of Formula 2 (see par. 16-25) such as Formula 2-11 for a light emitting device (see abstract and par. 76-81) per instant claims 1, 4-9, 11, 19-22, and 25:
PNG
media_image4.png
174
236
media_image4.png
Greyscale
X3 may be O or S, L3 is naphthylene, Ar3 and Ar4 can be phenyl or biphenyl among others (see par. 79-81). More specifically, an Ar3 or Ar4 can be ortho-biphenyl as shown as a corresponding Formula 2 group within at least the following example compound H-2-164 (see page 27, par. 128):
PNG
media_image2.png
170
152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 3, 21, and 23, general formula 2 (see par. 16) further teaches a linking group L3 may be 6 carbon phenylene (which encompasses para-phenylene) (see par. 20).
Regarding the bonding positions of claims 4 and 5, the L3 group may attach to the X3-containing group at any bonding location of the dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene group.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, general Formula 2 substituent group R10 (see par. 16-22) may be selected as deuterium.
The material of Formula 2 is used as a material in a light emitting layer per instant claim 12 9see par. 146-147). Regarding claims 13-15, further at least one layers may include an electron transport layer and hole blocking layer (see par. 149) that may further comprise an azine based compound (see par. 149). The triazine groups disclosed in Formula 2 are azine-based (triazine) compounds.
While Lee et al. does not appear to show all possible Lee et al. Formula 2 compounds as example compounds meeting instant Formula 1 as claimed, as discussed above the definition of a Formula 2 compound includes groups that may be selected the same as claimed. Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 Lee et al. 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 Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references specifically applied in the prior rejection of record.
With respect to the experimental results presented in the declaration received May 26, 2026, the tested “Inv” compounds are not fully commensurate in scope with the claimed compounds. Broad instant claim 1 provides for many more groups and substitutions than what is present in the tested “Inv” compounds. Currently applied references Mun et al. or Lee et al. provide for the broader group of groups and substitutions encompassed by instant claim 1 Formula 1. Also, the comparative compound of Dobbs (Compound “A2”) does not appear to be a specific compound shown in currently applied prior art reference Mun et al. or Lee et al.
The examples relied on by applicant as evidence of unexpected results do not provide an adequate basis to support a conclusion that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claims will behave in the same manner, and therefore, the evidence is not persuasive of nonobviousness because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. (See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).)
Conclusion
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