DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
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 1-2,4-14 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jatsch et al (US 2018/0222872) (Jatsch).
In reference to claims 1-2, 4-7, 16-18, and 20-22, Jatsch teaches compounds of formula (I), specifically formula (XVII) as shown below as a material for an organic electroluminescent device (Jatsch [0063] abstract)
PNG
media_image1.png
188
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
346
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
322
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula XIII, each of X is N, each Z1 is methyl, one Ar1 is phenyl and the other is phenyl substituted with dibenzothiophene or, a compound 4 except wherein the dibenzofuran is a dibenzothiophene as in compound 197 above (Jatsch [0016] [0019] [0065]).
Jatsch discloses the compound of formula (XVII) that encompasses the presently claimed compound of formula (I), including wherein in the formula XIII, each of X is N, each Z1 is methyl, one Ar1 is phenyl and the other is phenyl substituted with dibenzothiophene or, a compound 4 except wherein the dibenzofuran is a dibenzothiophene as in compound 197 above. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Jatsch are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula (XVII).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for formula (XVII) to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Jatsch and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on formula (I) wherein R1 and R1’ are each methyl, n is 1, L is phenylene, m is 1 and R2 is phenyl.
For Claim 2: Reads on wherein n is 1 and m is 1.
For Claim 4: Reads on wherein R2 is phenyl.
For Claim 5: Reads on wherein L is phenylene.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein R2 is phenyl.
For Claim 7: Reads on a material for a device.
For Claim 16: Reads on wherein R2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group.
For Claim 17: Reads on wherein L is phenylene.
For Claim 18: Reads on wherein R2 is phenyl.
For Claim 20: Reads on wherein R2 is phenyl.
For Claim 21: Reads on wherein R2 is phenyl.
For Claim 22: Reads on wherein R2 is phenyl.
In reference to claims 8-14 and 19, Jatsch teaches the compound (82) as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that this material is used in an organic electroluminescent device comprising, among other layers, an anode, cathode, emitting layer, electron transport layer, hole blocking layer (Jatsch [0070]) wherein the compound is included in an electron transport layer or a hole blocking layer (Jatsch abstract) and that electron transport layers can be doped with metals such as alkali metals or alkali metal complexes (Jatsch [0081]). Jatsch also teaches that these devices are used in electronic devices (Jatsch [0001])
While Jatsch does not exemplify a device as taught with this material included, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application to have used the device configuration taught by Jatsch to prepare a device with the anticipation that it would have functionally equivalent results to those devices exemplified therein.
In reference to claims 23-24, Jatsch teaches compounds of formula (I), specifically formula (XVII) as shown below as a material for an organic electroluminescent device (Jatsch [0063] abstract)
PNG
media_image1.png
188
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
322
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
346
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula XIII, each of X is N, each Z1 is methyl, one Ar1 is phenyl and the other is phenyl substituted with dibenzothiophene or, a compound 197 except wherein Z1 are each methyl that do not form a ring as in compound 4 above (Jatsch [0016] [0019] [0065]).
Jatsch discloses the compound of formula (XVII) that encompasses the presently claimed compound of formula (I), including wherein in the formula XIII, each of X is N, each Z1 is methyl, one Ar1 is phenyl and the other is phenyl substituted with dibenzothiophene or, a compound 197 except wherein Z1 are each methyl that do not form a ring as in compound 4 above. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Jatsch are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula (XVII).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for formula (XVII) to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Jatsch and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
This compound is a positional isomer of the instantly claimed materials. It is noted that 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). In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound presently claimed, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections over Jatsch, Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the prior art of record. Applicant argues that the methyl groups as substituents on the fluorene of Jatsch is not an obvious selection from among the genus of formula XVI. This argument is not convincing. Many if not most of the 275 example compounds of Jatsch comprise the methyl groups claimed at positions corresponding to Z1. Of the possible options preferred by Jatsch, methyl groups at Z1 appears to be the most obvious solution.
Applicant argues that the claimed features give rise to unexpected improvements in current efficiencies or lifetime. This argument is not convincing. Minimally, the results are not demonstrated to be of statistical significance. Further, the comparison does not differ by the claimed group difference (alkyl group selection of Z1). Finally the results are not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jennifer A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786