DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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 responsive to the amendment received June 24, 2026. Claims 1, 12, and 14 were amended. Claim 2 is a canceled claim. Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending.
The rejection of claims 12-15 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of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the claim amendment received June 24, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2019/0013490 A1) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment received June 24, 2026.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2019/0013490 A1) is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 2.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2019/0013490 A1).
Cho et al. teaches light emitting devices (see abstract) with Chemical Formula 1-1 or 1-2 compounds used with Formula 2 compounds (see par. 42-63 describing the formulas 1-1, 1-2, and 2 and corresponding definitions):
PNG
media_image1.png
310
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
186
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
More specifically, at least device example 8 is disclosed (see par. 213, Table 1), but the teachings of using Formula 1-1 or 1-2 compound with Formula 2 compound is not limited to only example embodiments:
PNG
media_image3.png
104
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
40
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Example host materials of the example 8 are reproduced 1-6 (par. 156) and 2-4 (par. 190) below:
PNG
media_image5.png
288
286
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
232
290
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 14 composition combinations:
Cho et al. teaches compounds of Formula 1-1 and Formula 1-2 (par. 42-49) as a first host materials, which are positional isomers of instant claim 1 Formula 1 formulas 3 or 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form positional isomers of Cho et al. formula 1-1 and 1-2 compounds the same as instant formulas 3 or 4, because one would expect the isomeric compounds to be similarly useful as host material in a light emitting device. Per MPEP 2144.09, compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious).
Formula 2 compounds such as Compound 2-4 is within instant formula 2.
Regarding claim 3, above compound 1-6 shows a meta bonding phenylene group may be selected per instant 1-2.
Regarding claim 4, above 1-6 shows a phenyl group may be selected per instant 1-1-3.
Regarding claim 5, above 1-6 shows a phenyl group may be selected per instant Ar11 as C6 aryl.
Regarding claim 7, above 2-4 is the same as instant compound 2-31.
Regarding claim 8, the example meets the structural requirement of having a layer comprising two compounds.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, the compounds of the above example device of (representative Formula 1-1/1-2 and Formula 2 compounds) are used in combination in a ratio of 120:180 (see par. 213, Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, the example device structure comprises further layers (see par. 208-211).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the combination of host materials in the example devices are co-evaporated (see par. 208-213).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form compounds as described above (including Cho et al. formula 1-1 or 1-2 positional isomers) wherein the resultant compounds and devices comprising the compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device having materials rendered obvious by Cho et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues compounds of instant formula 3 or 4 with bonding at the 3- or 4- position of a dibenzofuran group are superior to compounds taught by Cho et al. having a 1- or 2- bonding position. Applicant presents tables of data in the remarks, but the evidence is not presented in the form of a signed declaration. Note that MPEP 716.01 (c) sets forth “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (see full MPEP 716.01(c) section). Furthermore, the presented evidence is not fully explained. It is unclear if the devices using the “1-position” and “2-position” compounds were constructed exactly the same as specification inventive device examples. Also, it is unclear if the “1-position” and “2-position” compounds were tested against compounds comprising identical groups except for bond position of the dibenzofuran skeleton to the phenylene linker and if the compounds were tested in identical device structures.
The office further notes that MPEP 716.02 sets forth “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. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” Per MPEP 716.02(b), applicant has the burden to establish results are unexpected and significant and have the burden of explaining any data proffered as evidence of non-obviousness. The office submits applicant has not presented clear evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter and closest prior art and also has not presented any such data in the form of a signed declaration.
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights