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
Claim 1, 12, 13, and 14 is amended, and claims 10 and 11 are cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 06/03/2026. Claims 1–9, 12–16 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The objection to the drawings as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 06/03/2026. The objection is withdrawn.
The objection to the specification as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 06/03/2026. The objection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2021/0020845 A1, hereinafter “Park”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/03/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on page 50 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Compound 2-7 does not disclose the specific Hy1 and Hy2 moieties and the specific connecting position between Hy1 and Hy2 as defined in amended Claim 1.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees, so the rejections relying on Compound 2-7 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3–6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (WO 2019/212287 A1, hereinafter “Yoon” is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/03/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on page 51 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Compound 1 does not disclose the specific Hy1 and Hy2 moieties and the specific connecting position between Hy1 and Hy2 as defined in amended Claim 1.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees, so the rejections relying on Compound 1 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1–4, 6, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2019/240471 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/03/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 51–52 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Compound ETL 1 does not disclose the specific Hy1 and Hy2 moieties and the specific connecting position between Hy1 and Hy2 as defined in amended Claim 1.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees, so the rejections relying on Compound ETL 1 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kim (US 2022/0173331 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/03/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on page 52 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Compound 2-7 does not disclose the specific Hy1 and Hy2 moieties and the specific connecting position between Hy1 and Hy2 as defined in amended Claim 1.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees, so the rejections relying on Compound ETL 1 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1–5, 7–9, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/03/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 52–53 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Modified Compound 2-7 does not disclose the specific Hy1 and Hy2 moieties and the specific connecting position between Hy1 and Hy2 as defined in amended Claim 1.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees, so the rejections relying on Modified Compound 2-7 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/03/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 52–53 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Modified Compound 2-7 does not disclose the specific Hy1 and Hy2 moieties and the specific connecting position between Hy1 and Hy2 as defined in amended Claim 1.
Examiner's response – The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 12 has been amended to be independent. It therefore does not depend on the specific Hy1 and Hy2 moieties and the specific connecting position between Hy1 and Hy2 as defined in amended Claim 1. Modified Compound 2-7 reads on amended claim 12.
The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon is withdrawn since Applicant canceled claims 10 and 11 in the correspondence dated 06/03/2026, rendering the rejection moot.
The rejection of claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 06/03/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 53–57 of the reply dated 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant argues that the Examiner’s position relies on the flawed assumption that an ordinary artisan would routinely alter the bonding position of fused rings, expecting similar properties. Applicant argues that it is well established in the field of OLED materials that even a minor shifting of a bonding position within a fused ring system would alter the electronic structure, the HOMO/LUMO energy levels, triplet energy levels, dipole moments, and molecular packing modes.
To demonstrate the claimed specific bonding position Applicant argues that a device comprising Compound M001 exhibits a lower operating voltage, high current efficiency, and significantly extended operational lifetime when compared to a device comprising Comparative Compound Ref2.
Examiner's response – The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data as evidence of non-obviousness. 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. Evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. Evidence of nonobviousness must also be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. Comparison must be between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 716.02.
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Comparison with closest prior art
Although Applicant has shown a comparison between Compound M001 and Comparative Compound Ref2, they have not shown a comparison to the closest prior art Compound 1 disclosed by Yoon (shown below). It differs from Compound M001 in the bonding position of Hy1 and Hy2, the order of Hy1 and Hy2, the quinazoline substructure in Compound 1 vs the quinoline substructure in Compound M001, and the phenyl spacer in Compound M001. As the compounds differ by these variables, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
221
207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
127
223
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Commensurate in scope
The inventive Compound M001 has multiple different features than the Compound Ref2: 1) the n-containing heterocycles corresponding to Applicant’s Formula III are different (quinoline vs. isoquinoline), 2) the bonding positions around the n-containing heterocycles are different, and 3) the bonding positions of the phenylene linker group between the triazine and the n-containing heterocycle are different.
It is unclear whether the unexpected and superior properties stem from the specific bonding positions around the claimed structure of Formula III. For example the reason why the inventive device has unexpected properties is because the bonding positions of the phenylene linker group are different. None of the instant claims requires the phenylene linker group to be bonded via the meta positions. Additionally, the instant claims do not require the structure of Formula III to be quinoline. The structure of Formula III can be quinazoline as the closest prior art (i.e. Compound 1 of Yoon) has. Thus, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Unexpected results
The Applicant argues that the device comprising Compound M001 shows a substantial enhancement in the operating voltage, current efficiency, and operational lifetime in comparison to a device comprising Comparative Compound Ref2 (shown below). Applicant argues that the only difference between M001 and Ref2 is the specific connecting position between Hy-1 and Hy2. However, they also differ from the bonding position of the phenylene linker. In M001, the triazine is bonded in the meta position to the phenylene linker, while in Ref2 the triazine is bonded in the para position to the phenylene linker. Therefore, it is unclear if the change in the operating voltage, current efficiency, and operational lifetime is caused from the specific connecting position between Hy1 and Hy2, or if it is from the bonding position of the phenylene, or if it is from both.
PNG
media_image2.png
127
223
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
167
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is also unclear if the results are truly substantially enhanced. The driving voltage, current efficiency, and LT95 data provided for M001 and Ref2 shown as a percentage, wherein the percentage are normalized to the performance of the device comprising Comparative Compound Ref1 [Table 1-2]. Therefore, it is hard to evaluate how significant the change in driving voltage, current efficiency, and LT95 are when comparing M001 to Ref2. The raw device data would be needed to fully compare M001 and Ref2.
For at least those reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
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 6 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 6 recites wherein Formula III has any one of the listed structures. However, some of the structures listed do not read on amended claim 1. Amended claim 1 requires that the nitrogen of Formula III be in a specific position, which some of the listed structures in claim 6 do not have. For example, Substructure 4 does not have the nitrogen in the correct position (shown below). Therefore, claim 6 does not incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
228
161
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
212
196
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
124
164
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 7 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 7 recites wherein Formula III has any one of the listed structures. However, some of the structures listed do not read on amended claim 1. Amended claim 1 requires that the nitrogen of Formula III be in a specific position, which some of the listed structures in claim 7 do not have. For example, Substructure 5 does not have the nitrogen in the correct position (shown below). Therefore, claim 7 does not incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
228
161
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
212
196
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
155
180
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2019/212287 A1).
Regarding Claims 1–6, Yoon teaches Compound 1 which reads on Applicants’ independent claim 1, as described above.
However, Compound 1 fails to read on Applicants’ dependent claim 11 wherein the attachment to Formula III is specified.
Yoon further teaches that Compound 1 is represented by Yoon’s Chemical Formula 1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
221
207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
245
192
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
122
204
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X is O,
A1 is CH, A2 is N,
L is a single bond,
R1 is represented by Group A Fragment 1 (quinazolinyl group), wherein a31 is 1,
R2 and R3 are each an unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl),
R31 is a heteroaryl group (carbazole) substituted with an aryl group (phenyl),
Although Group A Fragment 1 has a specified bonding position, Yoon teaches more broadly that R1 may be represented by an unsubstituted quinazolinyl group [99]. An ordinary artisan would know that bonding positions may be altered and therefore could make a compound like Modified Compound 1 (shown below). Additionally, a31 may be 0 in which case R31 is not present.
PNG
media_image10.png
251
301
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
245
192
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Given the general Chemical Formula 1 and teachings of Yoon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound 1 wherein the quinazolinyl group is bonded at a different position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional positional isomers of the compound represented by Compound 1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host material in the light-emitting layer of the organic light-emitting device of Yoon and possess the improved driving voltage and efficiency taught by Yoon [596]. 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.
Per Claim 1, Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicants’ Formula I, Formula II, and Formula III (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
131
240
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
164
266
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
251
301
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl),
L is a single bond,
Hy1 is represented by Formula II, and Hy2 is represented by Formula III,
Y is O,
X6 is N,
X1–X5 and X7–X8 are represented by CR1 wherein each XCR1–XCR5 and XCR7–XCR8 are each hydrogen,
A1 and A3 are N,
A2, A4–A8 are represented by CR1 wherein each R1 is hydrogen.
Additionally, Modified Compound 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation as Hy1 and Hy2 are connected with # as shown below, wherein A10 is N, while A9, A11–A14 are each CR2 where R2 is hydrogen. Additionally, Hy1 is represented by Substructure 3.
PNG
media_image13.png
211
201
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
120
148
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
261
300
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 2, Modified Compound 1 does not have a substituent on the C6 aryl (phenyl). Therefore, Applicants’ limitation of limiting an optional substituent, which are not present in Modified Compound 1, is met.
Per Claim 3, Ar1 and Ar2 are each s phenyl in Modified Compound 1.
Per Claim 4, L is a single bond in Modified Compound 1.
Per Claim 5, Modified Compound 1 comprises Substructure 3 (shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
120
148
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
264
301
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 6, Modified Compound 1 comprises Substructure 4 (shown below).
PNG
media_image17.png
117
145
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
251
309
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2021/0020845 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Park teaches Example 3 comprising an anode, a cathode, and an electron transporting layer comprising Compound 2-7 [0340], as discussed above. Park further teaches organic light-emitting devices including a compound represented by Formula 1 may exhibit excellent efficiency and improved lifespan [0347].
However, Compound 2-7 does not read on the compounds of claim 12 since Hy1 and Hy2 are not connected wherein an N atom is adjacent to the connecting C atom in both Hy 1and Hy2.
Park teaches Compound 2-7 is represented by Formula 1 [0043] (shown below),
PNG
media_image19.png
202
336
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
209
325
media_image20.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Y1–Y3 are each N,
L is a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl),
A is a benzene,
Park teaches when A is benzene, a moiety including Y1–Y3 may be linked to the moiety including A [0052]. For Compound 2-7, the moiety is a benzofuropyridine substituted with a C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl).
Park teaches L can be linked to carbon 2 or carbon 3 of Formula 1 [0052]. Additionally, Park does not specify where the nitrogen in the benzofuropyridine is positioned or where the benzofuropyridine is linked to the moiety including A. An ordinary artisan would know that bonding positions may be altered and therefore could make a compound like Modified Compound 2-7 (shown below).
PNG
media_image21.png
266
314
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Given the general formula and teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Modified Compound 2-7 wherein the phenylene is linked on carbon 2, the beznofuropyridine is linked in a different position, and the N in the benzofuropyridine is in a different position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1/the positional isomers of the compound represented by Compound 2-7 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as an electron transport material in the electron transport layer of the organic light-emitting device of Park and possess the excellent efficiency and improved lifespan benefits taught by Park. 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.
Per Claim 12, Modified Compound 2-7 is identical to Applicants’ Compound M525.
PNG
media_image22.png
185
215
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
266
314
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Claims 1–9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyatkin et al. (US 2015/0207082 A1, hereinafter “Dyatkin”).
Dyatkin discloses Compound 346 (shown below) [pg. 41]. Dyatkin teaches an organic light emitting device including an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the electrodes comprising a compound of present disclosure [0029]. Dyatkin teaches an embodiment wherein the electron transport layer comprises a compound of present disclosure [0093].
PNG
media_image23.png
382
389
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
123
142
media_image24.png
Greyscale
However, Compound 346 fails to read on Applicant’s Formula I because the naphthalene, equivalent to Applicant’s Formula III, does not comprise at least one N atom.
Compound 346 is represented by Dyatkin’s Formula 1: G1-L-G2 wherein G1 is represented by the azadibenzofuran, L is represented by the naphthalene, and G2 is represented by the diphenyltriazine [0059]. Dyatkin teaches L is selected from a quinoline [0071]. Additionally, Dyatkin teaches L may be L2 (shown above) [pg. 11]. Dyatkin further teaches organic light emitting devices comprising the inventive compounds results in a lower voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifetime [0126].
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Dyatkin, 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 naphthalene with L2, because Dyatkin teaches the variable may suitably be selected as L2. The substitution would have been one preferred 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 an electron transport material in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Dyatkin and possess the benefits taught by Dyatkin. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified version of Compound 346 in the electron transport layer of an organic light emitting diode, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Dyatkin according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with a lower voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifetime, as taught by Dyatkin. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claims 1 and 13, the organic light emitting device comprising modified version of Compound 346 (hereinafter “Modified 346”) in the electron transport layer reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified 346 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1, Formula II, and Formula III (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
131
240
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
164
266
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
367
420
media_image25.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl),
L is a single bond,
Hy1 is represented by Formula III, and Hy2 is represented by Formula II,
Y is O,
X5 and X7 are each N,
X1–X4, X6 and X8 are represented by CR1 wherein each XCR1–XCR5 and XCR7–XCR8 are each hydrogen,
A1 is N,
A2–A8 are represented by CR1 wherein each R1 is hydrogen.
Additionally, Modified 346 reads on Applicant’s limitation as Hy1 and Hy2 are connected with # as shown below, and ## represents the connection between Hy1--- and L, wherein A9–A14 are each CR2 where R2 is hydrogen. Additionally, Hy2 is represented by Substructure 6.
PNG
media_image26.png
192
144
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
134
150
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
367
420
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 2, Modified 346 does not comprise a substituent on the C6 aryl. Therefore, it reads on Applicant’s further limitation of an optional substituent.
Per Claim 3, Ar1 and Ar2 are each a phenyl group in Modified 346.
Per Claim 4, L is a single bond in Modified 346.
Per Claim 5, Formula II is represented by Substructure 6 in Modified 346 (shown below).
PNG
media_image27.png
134
150
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 6, Formula III is represented by Substructure 7 in Modified 346 (shown below).
PNG
media_image28.png
135
145
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 8, Hy1 is connected to Hy2 through a C atom wherein one side adjacent to the connecting C atom in Hy2 is an N atom.
Per Claim 15, Dyatkin teaches devices of the invention can be incorporated into a variety of electronic products including a display screen [0043]. Dyatkin further teaches organic light emitting devices comprising the inventive compounds results in a lower voltage, higher efficeincy, and longer lifetime [0126].
However, Dyatkin is silent to a display deice including an organic light emitting device comprising Modified 346.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light emitting device comprising Modified 346 in a display device, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Dyatkin according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with a lower voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifetime, as taught by Dyatkin. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified 346 does not read on Applicant’s limitation since Hy1 is connected to Hy2 through a C atom wherein one side adjacent to the connecting C atom in Hy1 is not an N atom.
Modified 346 is a modified version of Compound 346 which is represented by Dyatkin’s Formula 1: G1-L-G2 wherein G1 is represented by the azadibenzofuran, L is represented by the naphthalene, and G2 is represented by the diphenyltriazine [0059]. Dyatkin teaches L is selected from a quinoline [0071]. Additionally, Dyatkin teaches L may be L3 (shown below) [pg. 11]. Dyatkin further teaches organic light emitting devices comprising the inventive compounds results in a lower voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifetime [0126].
PNG
media_image23.png
382
389
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image29.png
181
240
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Dyatkin, 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 naphthalene with L3, because Dyatkin teaches the variable may suitably be selected as L3. The substitution would have been one preferred 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 an electron transport compound in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Dyatkin and possess the benefits taught by Dyatkin. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Given the general formula and teachings of Dyatkin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of L3 wherein the N is changed to the 7-position instead of the 8-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Dyatkin’s Formula 1 /the positional isomers of the compound represented by L3 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as an electron transport material in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Dyatkin and possess the properties taught by Dyatkin. 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.
The modified version of Compound 346, as described above (hereinafter “Second Modified 346”, reads on Applicant’s limitation since Hy1 is connected to Hy2 through a C atom wherein one side adjacent to the connecting C atom in Hy2 is an N atom, and one side adjacent to the connecting C atom in Hy1 is an N atom (shown below).
PNG
media_image30.png
360
434
media_image30.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 7, Modified 346 does not read on Applicant’s limitation since Formula III is not represented by one of the structures recited in claim 7.
Modified 346 is a modified version of Compound 346 which is represented by Dyatkin’s Formula 1: G1-L-G2 wherein G1 is represented by the azadibenzofuran, L is represented by the naphthalene, and G2 is represented by the diphenyltriazine [0059]. G1 is shown below wherein R2 may be represented by a heteroaryl [0023]. Dyatkin teaches exemplified structures like Moiety 1 (shown below) [pg. 9]. Dyatkin further teaches organic light emitting devices comprising the inventive compounds results in a lower voltage, higher efficiency, and longer lifetime [0126].
PNG
media_image23.png
382
389
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image31.png
135
165
media_image31.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image32.png
163
139
media_image32.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Moiety 1 to R2 of G1, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified structures listed by Dyatkin [0077], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the an electron transport material in the electron transport layer of the organic light emitting device of Dyatkin and possessing the benefits taught by Dyatkin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Dyatkin’s Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Dyatkin 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 modified version of Compound 346, as described above (hereinafter “Third Modified 346”, reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises Substructure 8 (shown below).
PNG
media_image33.png
126
150
media_image33.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image34.png
284
419
media_image34.png
Greyscale
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyatkin et al. (US 2015/0207082 A1) as applied to claims 1–9, 13, and 15 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2019/0248801 A1, hereinafter “Shin”) and Im et al. (US 2006/0113907 A1, hereinafter “Im”).
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, Dyatkin is silent with respect to a cover layer.
Shin teaches Compound 14 [pg. 72] which is similar to Modified 346 as it comprises an azadibenzofuran moiety and a diphenyltriazine moiety (shown below). Shin further teaches the compounds of present disclosure may be used in the electron transport layer or the capping layer of an organic light emitting diode [0091].
PNG
media_image25.png
367
420
media_image25.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image35.png
239
291
media_image35.png
Greyscale
Im teaches a capping layer provides a high-efficiency and long-life OLED display [abstract].
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 add a capping layer to the organic light emitting device of Dyatkin to produce the display device of Im, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Im and Dyatkin according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED display with a high-efficiency and long-life, as taught by Im. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Modified 346 in the capping layer of the OLED display, based on the teaching of Shin and Im. The motivation for doing so would have been to include a compound which may be used in the capping layer, as taught by Shin, with the high-efficiency and long-life benefits, as taught by Im.
Per Claim 14, the OLED display comprising Modified 346 in the capping layer reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified 346 reads on Applicant’s Formula 1, Formula II, and Formula III (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
131
240
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
164
266
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
367
420
media_image25.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl),
L is a single bond,
Hy1 is represented by Formula III, and Hy2 is represented by Formula II,
Y is O,
X5 and X7 are each N,
X1–X4, X6 and X8 are represented by CR1 wherein each XCR1–XCR5 and XCR7–XCR8 are each hydrogen,
A1 is N,
A2–A8 are represented by CR1 wherein each R1 is hydrogen.
Additionally, Modified 346 reads on Applicants’ limitation as Hy1 and Hy2 are connected with # as shown below, and ## represents the connection between Hy1--- and L, wherein A9–A14 are each CR2 where R2 is hydrogen. Additionally, Hy2 is represented by Substructure 6.
PNG
media_image26.png
192
144
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
134
150
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
367
420
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 16, the OLED display, as described above, comprising Modified 346 in the capping layer reads on Applicant’s limitation since it is a display comprising an organic light emitting device.
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights