DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 09/25/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/25/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 8 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/25/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/25/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0203623 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/25/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0203623 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/25/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0203623 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/25/25 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0203623 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-13, Lee et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic light emitting device):
PNG
media_image1.png
528
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising anode (110), hole-injecting layer (120), light-emitting layer (140), electron-transporting layer (150), electron-injecting layer (160), and cathode (170); a compound of Formula 1 as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
256
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0055]) where X1 = O or S (only), R1 = aryl or heterocyclic ([0067]), and L3 = single bond, arylene, or heteroarylene ([0065]) is combined in a mixture with a second compound (of Formula 2) at a ratio of 2:8 to 8:2 to form a host material for the light-emitting layer (Abstract; [0010], [0013], [0046], [0138]). Lee et al. discloses that the organic EL device can alternatively comprise a plurality of stacks (ST1 and ST2), wherein each stack comprise a hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting layer (Fig. 3; [0038]). The light-emitting layers in each of the stacks comprise different host materials ([0043]). An embodiment (of Formula 1) is disclosed:
PNG
media_image3.png
321
373
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 19) such that p = 0, a = 1, L = direct bond, b = 1, Ar = unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), and N-het = Applicant’s Chemical Formula A (with Y1 = Y3 = Y5 = N and Y2 = Y4 = CRa (with Ra = unsubstituted aryl having 6 or 10 carbon atoms (phenyl or naphthyl))) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 1 and 1-2; Z1-3 = N, q1-2 = 0, r1-2 = 1 and Ar1-2 = unsubstituted aryl group having 6 or 10 carbon atoms (phenyl or naphthyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula A-1. However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose an embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1, particularly in regards to the nature of X. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the above compound as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) such that X = O. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of one atomic linking group (S) for a functional equivalent (O) of the same group and valency (and thus can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties) selected from a highly finite list as envisioned by Lee et al.’s general formula, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Lee et al. discloses additional embodiments such as the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
324
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 36). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose another embodiment that fully reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1, particularly in regards to the nature of the N-het group. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound 1-173 as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) such that p = 0, a = 1, L = direct bond, b = 1, Ar = unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), and N-het = Applicant’s Chemical Formula A (with Y1 = Y3 = Y5 = N and Y2 = Y4 = CRa (with Ra = unsubstituted aryl having 6 or 10 carbon atoms (phenyl or naphthyl))) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange one of linking group (dibenzofuranylene) for a functional equivalent (single bond) selected from a highly finite list as disclosed by Lee et al. (in regards to the scope of the L3 group), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Lee et al. further discloses that the organic EL device can alternatively additional stacks (such as ST2), wherein each stack comprise a hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting layer (Fig. 3; [0038]); notice that the entirely of the organic layers interposed between the electrodes can also be defined to be a single organic layer (organic material layer). The light-emitting layers in each of the stacks comprise different host materials ([0043]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the host composition comprising alternative embodiments (of Formula 1) as disclosed by Lee et al. into the light-emitting layers of additional stacks (such as ST2). The motivation is provided by the fact that the incorporation merely involves the selection of an alternative embodiment of Formula 1 selected from a highly finite list as disclosed by Lee et al. for use as host material of a light-emitting layer that is distinct from the emission profile of the first stack (ST1), thus rendering the utilization predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. Notice that the use of consistent thicknesses of the light-emitting layers (and the ratios between the compounds of Formulae 1 and 2 in the compositions) would result in a weight ratio of 5:5 between the two types of heterocyclic compound of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is provided by Lee et al. (US 2020/0203623 A1), which discloses a composition comprising compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image5.png
252
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0010]); an embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image3.png
321
373
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 19). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Lee et al. singly nor in combination with any other prior art discloses any of the specific compounds as recited in the claim, particularly in regards to the nature and bonding positions of the substituents attached to the core condensed heterocyclic group of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1.
Response to Arguments
13. The Office has carefully reviewed the Declaration filed 10/08/25.
14. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above. Furthermore, the Office finds the Applicant’s arguments in view of the unexpected (experimental) data unpersuasive as the data is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Notice the rather narrow scope of the inventive compounds tested to demonstrate unexpected properties, particularly in contrast to the wide scope of the -(L)a-(Ar)b group as recited in the claims corresponding to a wide array of compounds with properties which cannot be reasonably extrapolated from the Applicant’s data.
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786