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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1–9 are pending.
Claims 1–3 and 6 have been amended.
The amendment of claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1–5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (KR 2021/0093788, hereafter “Ha”) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment of claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-–9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (US 2016/0099422 A1, hereafter “Zeng ‘422”) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment of claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-–9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being unpatentable over by Zeng et al. (US 2016/0197285 A1, hereafter “Zeng ‘285”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 13 of the reply filed on 02/25/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1–5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Ha set forth in the Office Action of 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 16 of the reply filed on 02/25/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-–9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being unpatentable over Zeng ‘422 set forth in the Office Action of 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 18 of the reply filed on 02/25/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-–9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2016/0197285 A1, hereafter “Zeng ‘285”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereafter “Li”) set forth in the Office Action of 11/26/2025 have been fully considered.
The applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Comparison must be between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
Applicant argues that modified H7 taught by Zeng ‘285 in view of Li includes a phenylene group at a position corresponding to L1 of the instant Chemical Formula 1. Thus, the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. In respect to Applicant’s amendment further limiting L1, Applicant’s argument is persuasive and the rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn. However, another rejection could be made from Zeng ‘285 in view of Li wherein L1 is biphenyl. This is discussed in detail below under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
Applicant further argues that the modification of the compound taught by Zeng ‘285 by deuteration as taught by Li would not be obvious because the claimed compound provides surprising and unexpected improvements in device life-span T97 [see page 20]. Applicant’s support for this assertion is that instant Compound 33 has a 26% higher device life-span T97 in comparison to instant Compound A5. Notably, Compound 33 is the perdeuterated (wherein each position is deuterated) version of Compound A5 (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
565
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant claims many exemplified compounds in instant claim 6, of which only a subset are perdeuterated. Additionally, the full scope of compounds represented by instant Chemical Formula 1 wherein any position may be hydrogen, deuterium, or a substituent with at least one deuterium is exceptionally broad. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Applicant shows that perdeuteration of a single compound increases the life-span T97%, but does not show that partial deuteration or structural isomers will also have that increased life-span T97%. Therefore, Applicant’s evidence of nonobviousness is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully does not agree that an increase in device lifespan from deuterating a compound is surprising and unexpected.
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Li teaches the carbon-deuterium chemical bond is stronger, more stable, and reacts more slowly than the carbon-hydrogen chemical bond, so that the deuterated organic system has better thermal stability, and longer lifespan in optoelectronic devices [0009]. Additionally, Li teaches that perdeuterated Ir(ppy)3 has a higher quantum efficiency [Fig. 8] and higher luminance efficiency [Fig. 9] at different current densities in comparison to Ir(ppy)3 [0075] – [0076]. Li concludes that devices using deuterated organic semiconductor materials exhibit high luminance, excellent stability, and good lifetime [0077]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect an increase in device lifespan from deuterating an organic compound in a device in view of Li. Thus, Applicant’s argument of unexpected results is not persuasive.
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 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2016/0197285 A1, hereafter “Zeng ‘285”) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereafter “Li”).
Regarding Claims 1–9, Zeng ‘285 teaches devices comprising HIH (also known as Compound H8) [Table 1] which is represented by Formula III [0102] (shown below),
PNG
media_image3.png
232
278
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
181
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is S,
L2 is a phenyl,
R11 is mono substituted by aryl (phenyl),
R7–R8 are each tetra substituted by hydrogen,
R9–R10 are each tri substituted by hydrogen.
Notably, Zeng ‘285 teaches R7–R11 may each be deuterium [0106]. Zeng ‘284 also teaches L2 may be chosen from a finite list including biphenyl [0104].
However, Zeng ‘285 does not explicitly teach a compound like Compound H8 wherein R7–R11 are each deuterium and L2 is a biphenyl substituted with deuterium.
Regarding L2 being biphenyl, Zeng ‘285 recites L2 is selected from direct bond, phenyl, biphenyl, terphenyl, fluorene, triphenylene, dibenzofuran, dibenzothiophene, dibenzoselenophene, carbazole, and pyridine, and combinations thereof [0104]. Zeng ‘285 teaches devices comprising Compound H8 with high efficiency and long lifetime [0165].
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Zeng ‘285, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute biphenyl for phenyl because Zeng ‘285 teaches the variable may suitably be selected as L2. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the emissive layer of the organic light-emitting device of Zeng ‘285 and possess the benefits taught by Zeng ‘285. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Compound H8 by changing L2 from phenyl to biphenyl, because it would have been choosing between a direct bond, phenyl, biphenyl, terphenyl, fluorene, triphenylene, dibenzofuran, dibenzothiophene, dibenzoselenophene, carbazole, or pyridine, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the emissive layer of the organic light-emitting device of Zeng ‘285 and possessing the benefits taught by Zeng ‘285. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula III having the benefits taught by Zeng ‘285 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding R7–R11 each being deuterium and substituting L2 with deuterium, Li teaches that C-D bonds are stronger than C-H bonds leading to deuterated molecules being less reactive and more thermally stable than hydrogenated molecules. Optoelectronic devices made using deuterated molecules notice longer operational lifetimes than their hydrogenated counterparts. Additionally, deuterated luminescent materials could lead to a higher electroluminescent quantum yield as a result of their smaller non-radiative quenching rate [0008] - [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Compound H8 by changing R7–R11 to each be deuterium and substitute L2 with deuterium, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a compound with stronger bonds for use in an optoelectronic device with longer operational lifetimes, as taught by Li.
Additionally, given the general formula and teachings of Zeng ‘285, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute deuterium for phenyl, because Zeng ‘285 teaches the variable may suitably be selected as R11. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the emissive layer of the organic light-emitting diode of Zeng’285 and possess the benefits taught by Zeng ‘285. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Per Claim 1, The modified version of Compound H8 (hereafter “Modified Compound H8”) reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
392
427
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
330
411
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 is S,
L1 is a biphenylene group substituted with deuterium,
R1–R5 are each deuterium,
m1–m3 are each 4, while m4–m5 are each 3.
Per Claims 2 and 3, Modified Compound H8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since L1 is represented by a biphenylene group substituted with deuterium.
Per Claim 4, Modified Compound H8 reads on Applicant’s limitation since R1–R5 are each deuterium.
Per Claim 5, Modified Compound H8 reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-4 (shown below), wherein the variables are the same as defined above.
PNG
media_image7.png
315
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
330
411
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 6, Modified Compound H8 is identical to Applicant’s Compound 50 of Group 1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
254
284
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
330
411
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Per Claims 7 and 8, Zeng teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode and a cathode with an organic layer disposed between the electrodes. The organic layer comprises a compound represented by Formula III, such as Modified Compound H8, as a host material in the emissive layer [0032] and [0165].
Per Claim 9, Zeng teaches that organic light emitting devices fabricated in accordance with embodiments of the invention may be incorporated into a wide variety of electronic component modules (or units) that can be incorporated into a variety of electronic products or intermediate components. Examples of such electronic products or intermediate components include display screens, lighting devices, etc. [0046].
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789