Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-7, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0309343 A1 to Langer et al.
Langer et al. discloses an OLED wherein the electron-transport layer (ETL) comprises compound A-10:
PNG
media_image1.png
298
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(pp. 34-35 & 38). This compound is representative of the claimed compound of formula B wherein R’ = H, R8-12,14 = H, R13 = C15 aryl, n2 = 1 and L2 = single bond. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 5-7, 14-15 and 19 (p. 32).
Claims 1, 5-7, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0131673 A1 to Tanabe et al.
Tanabe et al. discloses an OLED wherein the emitting layer (EML) comprises compound A-17 as a host and 2,5,8,11-tetra-t-butylperylene as a guest (see Table 1 on page 50):
PNG
media_image2.png
186
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound is representative of the claimed compound of formula B. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 5-7, 14-16 and 19 ([0109]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-13 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed compound and device are not disclosed by the prior art of record. The most relevant prior art is US 10,665,789 B2 to Kim et al., which discloses an OLED having a low driving voltage, a high efficiency, and a long lifespan, wherein the OLED comprises the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
352
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
wherein the groups R51 and R52 can be a deuterium atom, an aryl group or a heteroaryl group (col. 4, lines 43-64), and wherein the (hetero)aryl groups may be further deuterated (col. 5, lines 15-37). An example of the compound is
PNG
media_image4.png
318
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound differs from the claimed compound in that the dibenzofuranyl group is not substituted with at least one of an alkyl group, an aryl group and a heteroaryl group. It is shown in the instant application that the claimed compounds, wherein L1 and L2 are bonded to the dibenzofuran at position 1 or 2, provide a higher luminous efficiency and improved device longevity than analogues having L1 and L2 bonded to the dibenzofuran at position 3 or 4. The finding is unexpected. There is not an obvious reason for a POSITA to modify the compounds disclosed by Kim et al. to arrive at the claimed invention.
Another relevant reference is US 2021/0083193 A1 to Tasaki et al., which discloses an OLED comprising a blue light-emitting layer composed of a host material and a dopant material, wherein the host material is selected from groups that include the compound of claim 1 (pp. 427-432) and the dopant is selected from groups that include the dopants of claim 17 (p. 442). However, there is not an obvious reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to pick and choose the appropriate host and dopant materials to arrive at the device of claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 8/03/2026, against the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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 VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights