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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 05/13/2026, the claims, specification, and abstract were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and drawings, the objections to claim 1 and the drawings are withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 4-5 and 19-20 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claims 4-5 and 19-20 as being of improper dependent form are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 1, 4, and 19 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Pan does not disclose or suggest selected dibenzofuran as R545, Examiner disagrees.
In paragraph [0086] of the previously provided translation, there are at least three preferred embodiments with a dibenzofuran moiety. As asserted by Applicant, when a patent’s inventors choose to disclose only specific types of compounds in their specific examples, as opposed to all possibilities covered by a generic formula, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that these specific compounds are the preferred implementations that the inventors considered important.
PNG
media_image1.png
201
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While dibenzofuran is included in a Markush group which describes a generic formula, dibenzofuran is also explicitly disclosed as a preferred substituent that the inventors considered important, through its use in several specific, preferred embodiments of the prior art, as pictured above. Similarly, the office has held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II. This makes selection of a dibenzofuran moiety at R545 obvious in view of the prior art.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Examiner’s combination relies upon hindsight bias, Examiner disagrees.
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Further, the only modification made to the compound of the prior art was the addition of a dibenzofuran group, which is explicitly disclosed as a preferred substituent through its use in several specific, preferred embodiments of the prior art, as discussed above. All other elements of the instant claims were already present in the prior art compound.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Examiner has used circular reasoning, Examiner disagrees.
To facilitate discussion, excerpts from paragraph [0035] of the previously provided prior art translation, and paragraph [0035] of the instant specification have been included below.
PNG
media_image2.png
213
1325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
150
932
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0035] of the prior art translation has been cited in the motivation statements found in paragraphs 27, 30, 34, 39, 51, and 55 of the Non-Final office action dated 02/25/2026.
However, Applicant has asserted that the motivation statement was instead taken from paragraph [0035] of the instant specification.
Examiner believes there has been a misunderstanding as paragraph [0035] of the instant specification does not disclose any technical effect claimed to have been discovered by Applicant. Conversely, paragraph [0035] of the prior art teaches that the deuterated fused-ring compound according to the invention of Pan et al. (WO 2018/095384 A1) can be used as a host material to prepare an organic electroluminescent device with blue light emission and which demonstrates longer device life than non-deuterated fused ring analogs. In view of the excerpts above, Applicant’s assertion that Pan does not teach or suggest the effect of deuteration on device lifetime is not found persuasive. Similarly, Applicant’s assertion that Examiner has cited the instant specification for motivation to modify the prior art is also not found persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the present invention achieves unexpected results which are described in paragraph [0035] of the instant specification, Examiner disagrees.
As pictured and discussed above, paragraph [0035] of the instant specification does not comprise any discussion of unexpected results, theories, or any empirical data from which to evaluate the claimed invention for unexpected results. To be of probative value, and objective evidence should be supported by actual proof. Arguments by Applicant cannot take the place of evidence (MPEP 716.01(c)).
For the sake of discussion, the data set forth in Table 1 of the instant specification will be discussed.
With respect to Applicant’s argument of unexpected results, Examiner disagrees in two parts.
First, it is noted that applicant has only provided data from one trial of each compound from a single device structure. There is not enough evidence to support Applicant’s assertion that that these same results would be observed over a statistical analysis of multiple trials and multiple device structures. Without a statement of standard deviation, it is unclear whether these data represent a statistically significant improvement over the comparison devices or whether these data fall within standard deviation. Also, Examiner objects to the presentation of data using relative values as it obscures original, numerical values.
Second, the data presented is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because the independent claim is drawn to a compound while the data and arguments are drawn to properties of a device comprising the compound. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that common endeavors in the field of organic electroluminescent devices, such as improved luminance, external quantum efficiency, device lifetime, color purity, and driving voltage are properties of a device, and are not necessarily inherent to a compound. Further, these properties can be influenced by device properties such as device layer order, layer thickness, as well as layer composition. There is not enough evidence to support Applicant’s assertion that the claimed improvements are the result of the claimed compound only, and would be observed in any device of any structure.
Thus, it is unclear whether these data represent a statistically significant improvement and whether these same results would be realized by the claimed inventive compounds in any device.
For at least these reasons the rejections are respectfully maintained.
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 1-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (WO 2018/095384 A1, using the previously provided translation for references).
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Pan discloses the compound below (paragraph 0087).
PNG
media_image4.png
152
370
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Pan Formula (V-3) (paragraph 0023), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
282
854
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Pan also teaches that R545 is a heteroaromatic ring system (paragraph 0078), such as dibenzofuran (paragraph 0056).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant formula (I) when Q is represented by either of (A-1) or (A-2), X is oxygen, R1, R2 and R3 are all hydrogen atoms, and L1 and L2 are both a phenylene group.
Pan includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Pan being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a dibenzofuran substituent from the finite list of possible substituents and arrive at a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a deuterated fused-ring compound which can be used as a host material to prepare organic electroluminescent devices with blue light emission which, when compared with non-deuterated fused-ring compounds, have longer device lifetime (paragraph 0035), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 3, Pan teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Pan also teaches that the heteroaromatic ring system can be deuterated (paragraph 0078, see also the compounds in paragraph 0086).
Pan includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Pan being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a deuterated dibenzofuran substituent from the finite list of possible substituents and arrive at a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a deuterated fused-ring compound which can be used as a host material to prepare organic electroluminescent devices with blue light emission which, when compared with non-deuterated fused-ring compounds, have longer device lifetime (paragraph 0035), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 4, Pan teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound has the structure of either Formula (II-1) or (II-2) because the bonding position of the dibenzofuran is not specified, and m and n are both 1.
With respect to claim 5, Pan teaches the compound of claim 4, and Pan also teaches that L can be a single bond (paragraph 0079).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when R1 or R3 are hydrogen atoms and m+n is 1.
Pan includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Pan being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a single bond from the finite list of possible linking groups and arrive at a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a deuterated fused-ring compound which can be used as a host material to prepare organic electroluminescent devices with blue light emission which, when compared with non-deuterated fused-ring compounds, have longer device lifetime (paragraph 0035), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 6, Pan teaches the compound of claim 1 and Q is represented by either of (B-1) or (B-3), as discussed above.
With respect to claims 7, 8, and 9 Pan teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Pan also teaches that the heteroaromatic ring system can be deuterated (paragraph 0078, see also the compounds in paragraph 0086).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of any of instant (B-5), (B-7), (B-24), (B-26), (B-44), and (B-46).
Pan includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Pan being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a deuterated dibenzofuran substituent from the finite list of possible substituents and arrive at a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a deuterated fused-ring compound which can be used as a host material to prepare organic electroluminescent devices with blue light emission which, when compared with non-deuterated fused-ring compounds, have longer device lifetime (paragraph 0035), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 10, Pan teaches the compound of claim 1, and each of L1 and L2 is p-phenylene (C-1), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 11, Pan teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound may be represented by at least the structure below (page 71, row 3, column 1 of the instant claims).
PNG
media_image6.png
214
472
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 12, 13, and 14, Pan teaches the compound of claim 1, and Pan also teaches a mixture comprising the deuterated fused-ring compound and a second organic functional material, such as a singlet emitter (a singlet emitter, paragraph 0091), and examples of singlet emitter include the diamine compound below (paragraph 0133-0134).
PNG
media_image7.png
260
532
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula (III-1) when Ar1 is represented by (D-2), and Ar2 through Ar5 are an aromatic group containing 6 ring atoms (phenyl). In Formula (D-2), R6 through R9 are a C1 alkyl (methyl) group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a mixture of the singlet light emitting guest material of Pan and the deuterated fused-ring compound of Pan, as taught by Pan.
With respect to claim 17, Pan teaches the compound of claim 1, and Pan also teaches an organic electronic device (paragraphs 0177-0178), comprising an anode, a cathode, an organic layer between the electrodes, and the organic (functional) layer comprises the deuterated fused-ring compound (paragraph 0184).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Pan in the organic layer of a device with the claimed structure, as taught by Pan.
With respect to claim 18, Pan teaches the device of claim 17, and Pan also teaches that the heteroaromatic ring system can be deuterated (paragraph 0078, see also the compounds in paragraph 0086).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the claim when one of R1, R2, and R3 is deuterium, and the other two are hydrogen atoms.
Pan includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Pan being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a deuterated dibenzofuran substituent from the finite list of possible substituents and arrive at a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a deuterated fused-ring compound which can be used as a host material to prepare organic electroluminescent devices with blue light emission, which compared with non-deuterated fused-ring compounds, have longer device lifetime (paragraph 0035), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 19, Pan teaches the device of claim 17, and the compound has the structure of either Formula (II-1) or (II-2) because the bonding position of the dibenzofuran is not specified, and n and m are both 1.
With respect to claim 20, Pan teaches the device of claim 17, and Pan also teaches that L can be a single bond (paragraph 0079).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when R1 or R3 are hydrogen atoms and m+n is 1.
Pan includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Pan being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a single bond from the finite list of possible linking groups and arrive at a compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a deuterated fused-ring compound which can be used as a host material to prepare organic electroluminescent devices with blue light emission, which compared with non-deuterated fused-ring compounds, have longer device lifetime (paragraph 0035), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (WO 2018/095384 A1, using the previously provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2021/0242419 A1).
With respect to claims 13, 14, 15, and 16, Pan teaches the mixture of claim 12, as discussed above.
Pan also teaches that the second organic compound can be a singlet emitter (fluorescent emitter), or hole injection/hole transport material (paragraph 0091), and examples of hole injection or hole transport materials are compound represented by the formula below (paragraph 0100).
PNG
media_image8.png
126
266
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Ar1 can be a pyrene (Formula D-1), and Ar2 through Ar5 can be a benzene (paragraph 0102, lines 1-2).
However, Pan does not fairly suggest use of a pyrene-bridged diamine as a compound of the mixture.
In analogous art, Nakamura teaches an organic electroluminescent device and composition for forming an emitting layer in the device which contains a blue fluorescent compound (abstract).
In the device examples, Nakamura uses compound BD-1 as a dopant in the emitting layer with an anthracene derivative host (BH) (paragraph 0364, and page 26). The dopant is pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image9.png
290
522
media_image9.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant formula (III-1) when Ar2 and Ar5 are a substituted (t-butyl) heteroaromatic (dibenzofuran) group, Ar3 and Ar4 are a substituted (methyl) aromatic (phenyl) group, and Ar-1 is represented by Formula D-1. In Formula D-1, R4 and R5 are hydrogen atoms.
This compound is also pictured on page 81 of the instant claims (row 6, column 3).
Nakamura also teaches Example 6 wherein compound BD-3 is used as a dopant in the emitting layer with an anthracene derivative host (BH) (paragraphs 0438-0446, page 26, and Table 1 on page 31). The dopant is pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image10.png
344
474
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant formula (III-2) when Ar6 through Ar10 are substituted (methyl or t-butyl) aromatic groups (benzene).
This compound is also pictured on page 84 of the instant claims (row 1, column 5).
Nakamura teaches that in these examples, the drive voltage is reducible and lifetime improvable. Further an improvement in luminous efficiency and blue fluorescence is expected (paragraph 0262).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one of BD-1 or BD-3 as a singlet emitter compound in combination with the anthracene-derivative host material of Pan and achieve reduced drive voltage, improved lifetime, improved luminous efficiency, and improved blue fluorescence, as taught by Nakamura.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights