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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are 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 to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 10 and 20 include compounds outside of the scope of independent claims 1 and 11 from which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al (US 2021/0066616) (Fleetham).
In reference to claims 1-3, Fleetham teaches a compound of formula I as shown below (Fleetham [0007]),
PNG
media_image1.png
162
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
194
188
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for example, a compound as shown above except wherein Y1 is S instead of O (Fleetham [0007]; [0072]).
Fleetham discloses the compound of formula I that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including a compound as shown above except wherein Y1 is S instead of O. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Fleetham are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula I.
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 the compound of formula I to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Fleetham and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1-1 wherein Z1 is CR4d, A1 is hydrogen, R1 and R2 are each hydrogen, X1 is S and X2 is formula 2, in each formula 2, Ra1 to Ra3 are each hydrogen, Q1 and Ra4 are each phenyl, R3a, R3b, R3c, R3d, R4a, R4b, R4c, and R4d are each hydrogen; at least one of X1 is S and at least one of X2 is formula 2.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula 2-2.
For Claim 3: Reads on A1 is hydrogen.
In reference to claims 11-13, Fleetham teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 and further teaches it is used as a dopant in an emitting layer between an anode and a cathode (Fleetham [0074] [0075] [0081]) wherein the host is e.g. a compound as shown below (Fleetham [0086]).
PNG
media_image3.png
150
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Given that Fleetham discloses the device configuration that encompasses the presently claimed device, including an anode, cathode, and host material, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to usethe device structure, which is both disclosed by Fleetham and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claims 11-13: Reads on the claimed device structure wherein the host is a compound of formula E-2b wherein Cbz1 is a carbazole, Cbz2 is a carbazole, b is 1, Lb is a dibenzothiophene.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al (US 2019/0115538) (Lim).
In reference to claims 1-3 and 5-10, Lim teaches a compound of formula 1-3 as shown below (Lim [0087] it is noted that X2 is clearly misdrawn in the wrong position given the rest of the disclosure)
PNG
media_image4.png
360
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
118
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
94
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 1-3, Y1 and Y11 are each B, X1, X11, and X12 are each O, X2 is S, c1 is 1, c2 is 0, c11 is 0, c3 is 1, a13 is 1, b13 is 1, L13 is formula 3-3, R13 is 5-1, a3 is 0, b3 is 1, and R3 is formula 5-1.
Lim discloses the compound of formula 1-3 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including Y1 and Y11 are each B, X1, X11, and X12 are each O, X2 is S, c1 is 1, c2 is 0, c11 is 0, c3 is 1, a13 is 1, b13 is 1, L13 is formula 3-3, R13 is 5-1, a3 is 0, b3 is 1, and R3 is formula 5-1. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Lim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1-3.
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 the compound of formula 1-3 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Lim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on formula 1-2 wherein A1 is a group of formula 3, Y2 is B, R1 and R2 are each hydrogen, X1 is S, and X2 are each O, Z1 is CR4d, A2 is phenyl and each other R is hydrogen.
For Claim 2: Reads on wherein X1 is S and X2 are O.
For Claim 3: Reads on wherein A1 is 3-4.
For Claim 8: Reads on formula 6-1.
For Claim 9: Reads on formula 7-2.
For Claim 10: Reads on 114.
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Lim teaches a compound of formula 1-3 as shown below (Lim [0087] it is noted that X2 is clearly misdrawn in the wrong position given the rest of the disclosure)
PNG
media_image4.png
360
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
118
372
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
94
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
for example, wherein in the formula 1-3, Y1 and Y11 are each B, X1 is NR53, X11, and X12 are each O, X2 is S, c1 is 1, c2 is 0, c11 is 0, c3 is 1, a13 is 1, b13 is 1, L13 is a bond, R13 is an alkyl group, a3 is 0, b3 is 1, R3 is alkyl and R53 is biphenyl.
Lim discloses the compound of formula 1-3 that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including Y1 and Y11 are each B, X1 is NR53, X11, and X12 are each O, X2 is S, c1 is 1, c2 is 0, c11 is 0, c3 is 1, a13 is 1, b13 is 1, L13 is a bond, R13 is an alkyl group, a3 is 0, b3 is 1, R3 is alkyl and R53 is biphenyl. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Lim are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1-3.
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 the compound of formula 1-3 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Lim and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al (US 2019/0115538) (Lim) and further in view of Fleetham et al (US 2021/0066616) (Fleetham).
In reference to claims 11-20, Lim teaches the compound as described above for claim 1 or 6 and further teaches its use in an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first and second electrode and an emitting layer wherein the compound is a dopant with a host (Lim [0007] to [0010]; [0167]).
Lim does not expressly teach a host material as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Fleetham teaches, in analogous art, organic EL devices comprising overlapping dopant materials to those described by Lim and further teaches that the emitting layer comprises a host that is, e.g. a compound as shown below (Fleetham [0086]) as an alternative to dibenzofuran or anthracene hosts as suggested by Lim (Fleetham [0081] [0134]).
PNG
media_image3.png
150
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
That is, the substitution of the host of Fleetham for the host of Lim, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of acting as a host material. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, concerning the rejections under 35 USC 103 over Fleetham et al and Lim , Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes this rejection by excluding the compounds of Fleetham an Lim.
However, Fleetham and Lim teach the claimed compounds by way of Markush groups. The claimed compounds are merely a subset of those set forth by Fleetham or Lim. In the absence of unexpected results from the selection of specific materials from among those disclosed by the prior art, the claims are considered obvious in light of the prior art of record.
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
Prosecution Insights