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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9-10 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 01/20/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claims 9-10 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 01/20/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-10 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 previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (English translation of WO 2016105165 obtained from Global Dossier) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (English translation of WO 2016105165 obtained from Global Dossier) is withdrawn due to reconsideration of the original grounds of rejection.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-19 of the reply dated 01/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-10 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended which require when X1 is a direct bond, X2 is O or S, and when X2 is a direct bond, X1 is O or S.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the new grounds of rejection below, the cited references teach a compound of the amended Chemical Formula 1 wherein X1 is O and X2 is a direct bond.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 20-21 of the reply dated 01/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 7 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that the triazine group of modified Compound J-92 is on a different carbon atom than the claimed compound. This is considered persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites “at least one of R1 to R5 and R15 is the following Chemical Formula 3”. As claim 4 does not recite Chemical Formula 3, it is recommended to delete the word “following” given that Chemical Formula 3 is previously recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2016/0163998 A1) in view of Lee (English translation of WO 2016105165 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10, Saito teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound A represented by formula (1) (¶ [0034]). In particular, the device includes an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer, wherein the compound represented by formula (1) is used as a host in the light emitting layer (¶ [0107], [0231], and [0421]). Compounds represented by formula (1) may be further represented by formula (3) (¶ [0064]). Examples of compounds represented by formula (3) include the compound below on pg. 22 (¶ [0218]).
formula (3):
PNG
media_image1.png
157
255
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saito’s compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
86
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Saito fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 as it does not comprise a structure represented by Chemical Formula 2 between adjacent one or more pairs of *. However, in Formula (3) Saito teaches R11 to R14 may be an aryloxy group, wherein R11 groups may be bonded to each other to form a ring structure (as shown in the structure above) and/or adjacent R13 groups may be bonded to each other to form a ring structure (¶ [0068], [0070], and [0082]).
Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent device having low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and improved lifespan characteristics by including an azepine-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 having excellent hole injection and transport ability and light-emitting ability (¶ [1] and [10]). In particular, the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is used as a host material (¶ [235]-[236]). In Chemical Formula 1, at least one pair of adjacent R1 to R12 substituents are condensed with a ring represented by Chemical Formula 2 to form a condensed ring (¶ [133]).
Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
161
177
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image4.png
75
114
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 are preferably represented by one of Chemical Formula C-1 to C-12, wherein examples of compounds represented by Chemical Formula C-7 including compound J-56 (¶ [64]-[65]; pg. 55).
C-7:
PNG
media_image5.png
226
235
media_image5.png
Greyscale
J-56:
PNG
media_image6.png
177
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Saito’s compound fails to read on Lee’s Chemical Formula 1 as a pair of adjacent R1 to R12 do not form a condensed ring represented by Chemical Formula 2.
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 form the fused ring
PNG
media_image7.png
85
94
media_image7.png
Greyscale
between adjacent R13 rather than adjacent R11, wherein the fused ring is attached such that the formed dibenzofuran is further bonded in positions 3 and 4, as shown in Lee’s compound J-56, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to arrive at a compound having the structure of Lee’s Formula C-7 and thus obtain the benefits of a device having low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and improved lifespan characteristics, as taught by Lee.
The resulting modified compound of Saito in view of Lee reads on Lee’s Chemical Formula C-7 wherein: X1 is O; X2 is a single bond; Y1 to Y4 are each C(R); R is hydrogen; R2 to R4, R9, R11 to R14 are each hydrogen and R10 is a substituent represented by Chemical Formula 11; L is a single bond; Z1, Z3, and Z5 are each N and Z2 and Z4 are each C(R) wherein R is an aryl group (see Lee, ¶ [197]-[210]). Accordingly, the modified compound of Saito in view of Lee is expected to obtain the benefits of Lee.
The resulting modified compound of Saito in view of Lee has the structure of the claimed compound below (claim 7) and is reproduced in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formulas 1, 2, and 3.
modified compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
163
181
media_image8.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image9.png
185
391
media_image9.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image10.png
84
205
media_image10.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image11.png
103
257
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The modified compound of Saito in view of Lee reads on the claimed Chemical Formulas 1, 2, 3, 1-2, and 1-7 (claims 1-2 and 4) wherein:
X1 is O and X2 is a direct bond;
R2 is represented by Chemical Formula 3 and R1 and R3 to R5 are each hydrogen;
Z1 and Z2 are each N;
Y1 and Y3 are each CRd and Y2 is N;
L1 is a direct bond;
Rc is not required to be present and Rd is an unsubstituted aryl group (claim 5);
a is 2, e is 4, b is 1, c and d are each 3.
Regarding claim 3, Saito in view of Lee teach the device comprising the modified compound, as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
163
181
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified compound fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1-3. However, in Formula (3) Saito teaches R11 to R14 may be an aryloxy group, wherein R11 groups may be bonded to each other to form a ring structure (as shown in the structure below on pg. 22) and/or adjacent R14 groups may be bonded to each other to form a ring structure (¶ [0068], [0071], and [0082]).
Saito’s compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
86
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, 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 hydrogen with an aryloxy group in the location of R14, and to bond the aryloxy group with an adjacent R14 to form a ring structure
PNG
media_image2.png
86
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as shown in Saito’s compound above, because Saito teaches R14 may be an aryloxy group and adjacent R14 groups may be bonded to each other to form a ring structure. The substitution would have been one known 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 the host compound represented by formula (3) in the light emitting layer of the device of Saito in view of Lee and possess the benefits taught by Saito and Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The resulting modified compound reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1-3 wherein one of X11 is a direct bond and the other is O.
Regarding claim 6, Saito in view of Lee teach the device comprising the modified compound, as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
163
181
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified compound fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein at least one pair of Rd adjacent to each other bond to form an aromatic ring or a heteroring. However, Saito does teach substituents of the compound represented by formula (1) may be a phenyl-triazine group as shown in the compound below on pg. 22, or a phenyl-quinazoline group as shown in the compound below on pg. 15.
Saito’s compound on pg. 22:
PNG
media_image2.png
86
106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Saito’s compound on pg. 15:
PNG
media_image12.png
247
203
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Saito, 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 the phenyl-triazine group with a phenyl-quinazoline group, because Saito teaches examples of substituents for the compound represented by formula (1) may suitably be selected as phenyl-triazine or phenyl-quinazoline. The substitution would have been one known 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 the host compound represented by formula (1) in the light emitting layer of the device of Saito in view of Lee and possess the benefits taught by Saito and Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a phenyl-quinazoline, because it would have been choosing a substituent specifically taught by Saito, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host compound represented by formula (1) in the light emitting layer of the device of Saito in view of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Saito and Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by formula (1) having the benefits taught by Saito and Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The resulting compound reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 3 wherein Y2 and Y3 are each CRd and this adjacent pair of Rd bond to each other to form a heteroring.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights