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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Compound 10 (HBL-10), see below, in the reply filed on 08/20/2026 is acknowledged.
PNG
media_image1.png
210
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant remarks that the examiner did not provide any indication that the content of the claims interpreted in light of the description was considered when asserting a lack of unity and did not meet the burden to support a restriction.
This is not persuasive as there is no requirement in the MPEP that the Examiner state on the record how she interprets the claims for restriction purposes, furthermore, per MPEP claims are always given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Applicant remarks that the restriction is not proper because there is unity of invention between Groups I and II, since “there is a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature”.
This is not found persuasive as the examiner on pages 4-5 of the office action mailed 06/24/2026 explained that Groups I and II (which include compounds of formula I) have the same special technical feature, however this feature did not appear to make a contribution over the prior art of Jung.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Following extensive search and examination, the originally elected species has been deemed free of the prior art. Per MPEP 803.02(III):
If the examiner determines that the elected species is allowable over the prior art, the examination of the Markush claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the Markush claim with respect to a nonelected species, the Markush claim shall be rejected; claims to the nonelected species would still be held withdrawn from further consideration. The prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species and need not be extended beyond a proper Markush grouping.
Accordingly, Examination was extended to a non-elected species. Following extensive search and examination, the non-elected species were deemed anticipated and/or obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. Per MPEP 803.02 (III), claims directed to other nonelected species have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-9, 11-20, 27, and 31-38 are presently examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 18-20, and 27objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 as written is not clear about what substituent is referenced, should state “wherein m is 1, and L1 is a linking group,
wherein the linking group is a divalent residue that comprises an unsubstituted aryl group with 6 to 30 ring carbon atoms selected from a phenyl group, a biphenyl group, a terphenyl group, a naphthyl group, and a phenanthryl group,
wherein the divalent residue further comprises an unsubstituted heterocyclic group with 5 to 30 ring atoms, selected from a pyridyl group, a pyrimidinyl group, a quinolyl group, and an isoquinolyl group, or a divalent residue derived from any one of groups in which two or three of these groups are bonded to each other.
Claim 5 as written is not clear about what substituent is referenced, should state “wherein m is 2, and L1 is a linking group,
wherein the linking group is a trivalent residue that comprises an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 ring carbon atoms selected from a phenyl group, a biphenyl group, a terphenyl group, a naphthyl group, and a phenanthryl group,
wherein the trivalent residue further comprises an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 5 to 30 ring atoms selected from a pyridyl group, a pyrimidinyl group, a quinolyl group, and an isoquinolyl group, or a trivalent residue derived from any one of groups in which two or three of these groups are bonded to each other.
Claim 8 as written is not clear about what substituent is referenced, should state “wherein Arl is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 17 ring carbon atoms, selected from a phenyl group, a biphenyl group, a terphenyl group, a naphthyl group, and a phenanthryl group”.
Claim 9 as written is not clear about what substituent is referenced, should state “wherein L2 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 to 30 ring carbon atoms, selected from a phenylene group, a biphenylene group, a terphenylene group, a naphthylene group, and a phenanthrylene group”.
Claim 18 as written is not clear about what substituent is referenced, should state “wherein R1 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 50 ring carbon atoms, selected from a phenyl group, a biphenyl group, and a naphthyl group”.
Claim 19 as written is not clear about what substituent is referenced, should state “wherein R1 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 50 carbon atoms, selected from a methyl group, an ethyl group, an n-propyl group, an isopropyl group, an n-butyl group, an isobutyl group, an s-butyl group, and t-butyl group”.
Claim 20 as written is not clear about what substituent is referenced, should state “wherein R1 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 50 ring carbon atoms, represented by a phenyl group, or R1 is an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 50 carbon atoms represented by a methyl group”.
Claim 27 as written is not clear about what substituent is referenced, should state, “wherein R31 to R35 are an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 50 ring carbon atoms, independently selected from a phenyl group, a p-biphenyl group, an m-biphenyl group, an o-biphenyl group, a p-terphenyl-4-yl group, a p-terphenyl-3-yl group, a p-terphenyl-2-yl group, an m-terphenyl-4-yl group, an m-terphenyl-3-yl group, an o-terphenyl-2-yl group, a 1-naphthyl group, a 2-naphthyl group, a fluorenyl group, a 9,9’-spirobifluorenyl group, a 9,9-dimethylfluorenyl group, and a 9,9-diphenylfluorenyl group”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-9, 11-20, 27, and 31-38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “in the case where two or more groups each represented by R901 exist, the two or more groups each represented by R901 are the same as or different from each other”, before this statement in Claim 1, R901 only has one occurrence in a group represented by -Si(R901)(R902)(R903). It is unclear what the applicant is referring to with the statement “two or more groups”, because R901 is only referenced once for substituent Ar1. Substituents R902-R907 are also determined to be indefinite by the same logic as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20, 31-32, and 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (Woo Min Jung et al, “Novel Hetero-cyclic Compound and Organic Light Emitting Device Comprising the Same”, KR 20170141144 A, Pub. Date: 12/22/2017, Machine Translation).
Jung discloses 1,3,5-Triazine, 2-(1-dibenzofuranyl)-4-(9,9-diphenyl-9H-fluoren-2-yl)-6-phenyl, herein compound 1, bottom left, as a novel compound used as a material for an organic layer in an organic light emitting device (Abstract and Pg. 6). Jung teaches Formula (1), where X can be Nitrogen or CH, and L can be a single bond. Compound 1, disclosed in Jung, overlaps with instant Formula (1), see bottom right.
PNG
media_image2.png
191
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
179
273
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To map Compound 1 disclosed in Jung, with a compound of instant Formula (1) disclosed on Pg. 68 of the specification, bottom right, Ar1 is an unsubstituted aryl group with 6 ring carbons(Claims 1, 2, 8), group A is (HAr1)m, where m is 1, and L1 is a single bond (Claims 1-3), Y1 is an oxygen atom (Claim 1, 2, and 12), and X1 to X8 are each CR10 ,where R10 is hydrogen (Claims 1, 2, 14, and 34). Group B is represented by formula (4), where R1 is an unsubstituted aryl group with 6 ring carbon atoms (Claims 1, 2, 17-18, and 20), L2 is a single bond (Claims 1, 2, 11), and R11-R18 and R21-R25 are each independently hydrogen (Claims 1, 2, 31, and 35-37).
PNG
media_image2.png
191
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
137
214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 38, Jung discloses that the compounds taught can be substituted with one or more substituents, including deuterium [0025].
Regarding the limitations of instant Claim 16, wherein X4 is a carbon atom that is bonded to *a, Jung discloses compound 2, see below.
PNG
media_image5.png
119
215
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jung discloses compounds of Formula I, wherein X is independently N or CH [0014].
PNG
media_image6.png
154
315
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Jung does not display an embodiment for compounds with 2 Nitrogen atoms in the central ring, but does teach that X can be Nitrogen or CH.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the arts, to take Compound 1 disclosed in Jung, and remove a Nitrogen atom in the central ring to arrive at a compound disclosed in instant formula 1, because Jung teaches that the central ring can have between 0 and 3 nitrogen atoms in Formula (1). Also, both Jung and the instant application teach compounds for use in light emitting devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated through routine optimization to choose two Nitrogen atoms in the central ring instead of three because there are a finite number of positions that Nitrogen can occupy according to Formula (1) in Jung.
Closest prior art
Claims 4-7, 13, 27 and 33 are free of the prior art.
The closest prior art is Jung (Woo Min Jung et al, “Novel Hetero-cyclic Compound and Organic Light Emitting Device Comprising the Same”, KR 20170141144 A, Pub. Date: 12/22/2017, Machine Translation).
The teachings of Jung discussed above are incorporated into this rejection.
Jung does not teach m is 2, or L1 as a linking group. Jung does not disclose Sulfur in the compound.
Jung does not teach compounds of instant Formulas (8), or (9). The compounds disclosed in Jung do not have the additional benzene ring, with substituents R31-R35 attached.
PNG
media_image7.png
654
767
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Jung does not teach compounds of instant Formulas (10), or (11). The compounds disclosed in Jung do not have the additional benzene ring with substituents R31, R33, and R35, and they do not have a second tricyclic ring with substituents Y1 and X1-X8.
PNG
media_image8.png
771
687
media_image8.png
Greyscale
There is no motivation known in the art, to replace oxygen for sulfur, add an additional benzene ring and to add an additional tricyclic ring structure to the compounds disclosed in Jung, to arrive at a compound of instant Formulas (8)-(11). One of ordinary skill would have no motivation to add those structures to the compounds currently known in the art, to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIERRA M ROCHELLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9962. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 571-270-5239. 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights