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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 6 are amended and claim 2 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 09/21/2026. Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 2 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claim 2 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 09/21/2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2014/0231769 A1) in view of Hyun (English translation of KR 20200100972 A obtained from Espacenet) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/21/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2014/0231769 A1) in view of Hyun (English translation of KR 20200100972 A obtained from Espacenet) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 09/21/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 229-235 of the reply dated 09/21/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-11 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 229-232, Applicant argues the data of the instant specification establishes the criticality of the linking position of the triazine ring to the dibenzofuran core. Particularly, Applicant argues that if the triazine ring is located at a position other than position 1, the improved device properties are not achieved. Applicant points to Examples 123 and 125 (comprising compound 1-55) and Comparative Examples 52 and 55 (comprising compound A-6) for support.
PNG
media_image1.png
261
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's response –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
Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. The device examples of the instant specification comprise different device structure and materials than the devices of Nishimura.
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Nishimura teaches compound H13 which includes a dibenzofuran ring substituted with phenyl in the 2-position, wherein the phenyl is further substituted with diphenyl-triazine (see structure of pg. 415 of Nishimura). In contrast, compound 1-55 includes a dibenzofuran ring substituted with phenyl in the 3-position and a naphthyl in the 1-position, wherein the naphthyl is further substituted with diphenyl-triazine. Additionally, compound A-6 includes a dibenzofuran ring substituted with phenyl in the 4-position and a naphthyl in the 6-position, wherein the naphthyl is further substituted with diphenyl-triazine. Applicant has not provided an explanation regarding these differences.
H13:
PNG
media_image2.png
179
287
media_image2.png
Greyscale
That is, there no comparison between a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1 and a compound comprising a triazine unit in the 2-position (as taught by Nishimura). It is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be obtained if a comparison was made between a device comprising Nishimura’s H13 and a device comprising a structure identical to H13 except wherein the triazine moiety is provided in the 1-position.
With respect to the device structure, Nishimura teaches devices having the following structure and materials (see Example 6 in Table 1 on pg. 416 and ¶ [0250]-[0257]):
Anode: ITO
Hole injection layer: compound HI
First hole transporting layer: compound HT1
Second hole transporting layer: compound HT2
Emitting layer: compounds H13 and H5 (first and second hosts) and compound D1
Electron transporting layer: compound ET1
Cathode: LiF/Al
The instant devices of the Declaration include the following (instant ¶ [877]-[879]):
Anode: ITO
Hole injection layer: Compound HI-1 doped with Compound A-1
Hole transport layer: Compound HT-1
Electron blocking layer: Compound EB-1
Light emitting layer: Compounds of the instant Chemical Formula 1 and 2 and Compound Dp-7
Hole blocking layer: Compound HB-1
Electron transport and injection layer: Compound ET-1 and LiQ
Cathode: LiF/Al
As shown above, the devices of the instant specification contain both a different layer structure and different layer materials as compared to the device of Nishimura. Applicant has not provided an explanation regarding this difference. It is unclear if the device comprising the same structure and materials of Nishimura that also contain a compound represented by the instant Chemical Formula 1-1 would obtain the results as discussed by Applicant.
As the devices of Applicant and the devices of Nishimura comprise different structure and materials, 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).
Commensurate in Scope
As the claims claim a broad Chemical Formula 1-1 but compound 1-55 is an example of only one specific structure, the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, as discussed in the rejection below, Nishimura’s H13 includes hydrogen in the location of the instant Ar3 and phenylene in the location of the instant L. These are within the scope of the instant Chemical Formula 1-1. As there are no results of compounds comprising a structure of the instant Chemical Formula 1-1 wherein Ar3 is hydrogen and L is phenylene, the claims are not commensurate in scope and it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present.
Additionally, as the claims claim a broad device structure including any materials but the devices discussed in the instant specification only recite one specific device structure and materials (see instant ¶ [877]-[879]), the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, as discussed above, Nishimura teaches different device structure and materials than the instant specification. The structures and materials discussed in the prior art are within the claim scope of the instant application. As there are no results comprising the structures and materials of the prior art, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present.
Applicant's argument –On pages 232-235, Applicant argues there is no teaching or suggestion in Hyun of a compound that includes the amine group at positions distant from the oxazole ring of the core. Applicant argues doing so would change the electronic properties of the compounds and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation that such a modification would result in compounds having the same or similar properties.
Applicant further argues on pages 234-235 that the data of the instant specification provides evidence that having the amine substituent on the oxazole ring of the core does not exhibit the same improved properties as achieved by the compounds of the instant Chemical Formula 2. Applicant points to Examples 3 and 7 (comprising compound 2-16) and Comparative Examples 121 and 125 (comprising Compound B-1) for support.
B-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
101
134
media_image3.png
Greyscale
2-16:
PNG
media_image4.png
143
173
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner's response –As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Hyun teaches compound 1 (see structure on pg. 13).
compound 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
76
201
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While Hyun’s compound 1 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 due to the attachment position of the arylamine group, 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 Hyun’s compound 1 wherein the arylamine group is provided in the highlighted location
PNG
media_image6.png
53
201
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomers of the compound represented by Hyun’s chemical formula I in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nishimura in view of Hyun and possess the properties taught by Hyun. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
While Applicant argues that the data of the specification provides evidence that repositioning the amine group would not result in a compound having the same or similar properties, the evidence provided by the instant specification is not persuasive as Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02.
As seen by the structures above, Compound B-1 and Compound 2-16 differ by more than just the positioning of the amine group. For example, Compound B-1 includes a sulfur atom in the same location where Compound 2-16 includes an oxygen atom. Additionally, Compound B-1 includes a biphenyl group attached to the nitrogen atom in the para-position whereas Compound 2-16 includes a biphenyl group attached to the nitrogen atom in the ortho-position. Accordingly, Compounds B-1 and 2-16 differ by more than just the position of the amine group and it is unclear to what degree the difference in properties may be attributed to the position of the amine group and what degree the difference in properties may be attributed to the other structural differences (S vs. O and ortho- vs. para-positioning).
As no explanation is provided for compounds having these differences, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be obtained if a comparison was made between compounds comprising the same structure except for the position of the amine group.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2014/0231769 A1) in view of Hyun (English translation of KR 20200100972 A obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-11, Nishimura teaches an organic electroluminescence device having improved lifetime by including an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer therebetween, wherein the organic layer includes an emitting layer, which further includes a first host material, a second host material, and a phosphorescent dopant material (abstract; ¶ [0227]-[0233]). Nishimura teaches a specific example of such a device in Example 6 which comprises H13 as the first host material and H6 as the second host material (see Table 1 on pg. 416). Compound H13 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1 (see structure on pg. 415).
H13:
PNG
media_image2.png
179
287
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound H13 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1 due to the attachment position of the phenyl-triazine moiety. However, in formula (1), Nishimura does not limit the attachment of dibenzofuran to the remainder of the structure (¶ [0007]-[0017]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Nishimura, 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 H13 wherein the phenyl-triazine moiety is attached in the 1-position of the dibenzofuran rather than the 2-position. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Nishimura’s formula (1) in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the first host in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nishimura in view of Hyun and possess the properties taught by Nishimura. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified compound H13 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1-1 (see structure on pg. 415).
modified H13:
PNG
media_image7.png
338
232
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image8.png
226
262
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified compound H13 reads on the claimed Formula 1-1 wherein:
L is an unsubstituted C6 arylene (phenylene) (claim 3);
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) (claim 4);
Ar3 is hydrogen (claim 5);
D is not required to be present; and
n is an integer of 0.
The modified compound H13 reads on the second claimed compound on pg. 52 in claim 6.
H6 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2. However, Nishimura teaches the second host material may be represented by formula (30) (¶ [0039]). Additionally, Nishimura teaches the compound represented by formula (30) exhibits electron blocking capability or hole transporting capability (¶ [0227]).
formula (30):
PNG
media_image9.png
89
228
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Hyun teaches an organic luminescent compound represented by chemical formula I for use in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device, wherein the compound provides the device with excellent luminous efficiency and quantum efficiency and improved lifetime (¶ [0012]-[0016], [0084], and [0205]). The compound may specifically be provided as a host in a light-emitting layer (¶ [0194]; Table 2 on pg. 43). Additionally, as the compound represented by chemical formula I may be used in a hole transport layer or an electron blocking layer, the compound has electron blocking and hole transporting capability (¶ [0053]). Examples of compounds represented by chemical formula I include compound 1 (see structure on pg. 13). Hyun’s compound 1 reads on Nishimura’s formula (30) (see Nishimura, ¶ [0039]-[0049]).
compound 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
76
201
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 substitute the second host compound of H6 in Nishimura’s Example 6 with a compound represented by Hyun’s chemical formula I, based on the teaching of Hyun. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with excellent luminous efficiency and quantum efficiency and improved lifetime, as taught by Hyun.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Hyun’s compound 1, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds taught by Hyun and represented by chemical formula I, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nishimura in view of Hyun and possessing the benefits taught by Nishimura and Hyun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising second host compounds represented by Nishimura’s formula (30) having the benefits taught by Nishimura in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Hyun’s compound 1 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 due to the attachment position of the arylamine group.
However, 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 Hyun’s compound 1 wherein the arylamine group
PNG
media_image5.png
76
201
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is provided in the highlighted location
PNG
media_image6.png
53
201
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomers of the compound represented by Hyun’s chemical formula I in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Nishimura in view of Hyun and possess the properties taught by Hyun. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. Compounds which are positional isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified compound 1 reads on Nishimura’s formula (30) wherein: Ar230 in each instance is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 12 ring carbon atoms; Y3 is O; L3 is a single bond; w is 1; R231 is hydrogen and R232 is a substituted alkoxy group that combines with an adjacent R232 to form a ring (see Nishimura, ¶ [0039]-[0049]). Accordingly, the modified Example 6 is expected to obtain the benefits of Nishimura.
The modified compound 1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
modified 1:
PNG
media_image10.png
389
351
media_image10.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image11.png
127
378
media_image11.png
Greyscale
2-a:
PNG
media_image12.png
135
98
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein:
A’1 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-a;
Ar’1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) (claim 9);
L’ is a single bond (claim 8);
Ar’2 and Ar’3 are each an unsubstituted C12 aryl (biphenyl) (claim 10);
D is not required to be present; and
n’ is 0.
Additionally, the modified compound 1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2-1 (claim 7) and the fifth claimed compound on pg. 115 of claim 11.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights