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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed March 3, 2026, which amends claims 1-4, 7, 20, and 21 and cancels claims 5 and 19. Claims 1-4, 6-18, and 20-22 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 3, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as set forth in the Office action mailed December 3, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 3, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2019/0074451) as set forth in the Office action mailed December 3, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed March 3, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 5 and under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0074451) as set forth in the Office action mailed December 3, 2025. The applicant cancels claims 5 and 19; therefore, the claims are no longer pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Lee does not teach that the L groups such as L1 or L21 can be an aryl group, the Office points out that paragraph [0101] teaches that when the number of L1 groups is more than 1 than the L1 can be the same or different. Lee further teaches that L1 or L21 is preferably a phenylene group (paragraph [0084] and [0097]-[0099]). Lee teaches that L1 can be a phenylene group and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Lee does not teach that taught compound cannot be used in the electron transporting layer or hole blocking layer, the Office points out that paragraph [0187] specifically teaches that the taught compound can be used in a variety of layers in the electroluminescent device and these layer include a hole blocking layer or an electron transporting layer. Lee does teach that the compounds can be used in these layers and would direct one of ordinary skill in the art use the compound of Lee in the hole blocking layer or electron transporting layer.
Regarding the applicant’s argument of unexpected results, the results presented are not commensurate in scope with the prior art. The prior reference Lee teaches that the dibenzofuran group is directly attached to the triazine group and the reference example used does not have this limitation. The compounds of Lee are closer to the compounds of the instant application than the reference compound. The applicant has not compared there claimed invention to the compounds of Lee and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The reference compound of the instant application differs that the claimed invention by not comprising another aryl group between the carbazole group and the triazine group, the attachment position of the dibenzofuran group, and the presence of a linker between the triazine group and the dibenzofuran group. It is unclear from the reference compound what variable is causing the observed results over reference compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14, which depends from claim1, claims that formula 1 can be represented by formula 4-1,
PNG
media_image1.png
119
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, or formula 4-2
PNG
media_image2.png
136
211
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but formula 1 require both groups attached to the phenylene group to be in the para position. Formula 4-1 or 4-2 does not further limit claim 1 and formula 1. 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0074451) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-18, and 20-22, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer (applicant’s first electron transporting layer), an electron transporting layer (applicant’s second electron transporting layer), an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0181]-[0194]). Lee teaches that the electron transporting layer or hole blocking layer can be composed of a compound the meets the following formula,
PNG
media_image3.png
107
259
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0008] and [0187]). Lee teaches that a21 can be 0-3 and L21 can be phenyl or naphthyl (paragraphs [0084] and [0097]-[0101]). Lee teaches the following compounds are derived from the following compounds,
PNG
media_image4.png
150
257
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
213
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
203
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
184
249
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image8.png
131
253
media_image8.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0175]). Lee shows that triazine group can be a substitute and equivalent for the pyrimidine group;
PNG
media_image9.png
57
106
media_image9.png
Greyscale
is a substitute and equivalent for
PNG
media_image10.png
61
111
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, and carbazole can be substitute and equivalent for
PNG
media_image11.png
78
130
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in the formula/compounds (paragraph [0175]). Lee teaches that the compounds can be deuterated (paragraphs [0064]-[0160]). Lee teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in an electronic apparatus (paragraph [0003]).
Lee does not specifically teach a compound that meets applicant’s claimed formula 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pyrimidine group in
PNG
media_image7.png
184
249
media_image7.png
Greyscale
with a triazine group or substitute
PNG
media_image10.png
61
111
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in
PNG
media_image5.png
213
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
with
PNG
media_image9.png
57
106
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in the compounds of Lee and add an additional phenylene group between the triazine group and the carbazole group (a21 is 2 or 3 and L21 are both phenylene groups). The substitute would have been one preferred and taught equivalent group for another preferred group. Lee specifically teaches that there can be more than 1 L21 group and both groups can be the same or different and can be phenylene groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the compounds to act in a similar manner as the other compounds of Lee, since Lee teaches that the groups can be substitutes for each other. This would lead to a compound that would meet applicant’s formula 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, or 4-6.
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 ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759