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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 7/29/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants amendments have overcome the objection to the specification as well as the 112(b) rejections. Applicants have amended Formula 1 of claim 1 to eliminate L2 from being bonded to Z2. The prior art rejection to Kim et al. (US 2025/0127043) teaches compounds which adhere to the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
136
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(abstract). Kim et al. notably does not teach any other bonding pattern between the triazene ring and the dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene ring. Because the inventive concept of Kim et al. is limited to the bonding arrangement which has been excluded from claim 1, Kim et al. can no longer be relied upon in any prior art rejections. Further search has led to a new prior art rejection as described below and a new 112(d) prior art rejection is described below.
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.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. Formula 1 of claim 1 excludes embodiments where Z2 is bonded to L2, which is an embodiment permitted by claim 3. For this reason, claim 3 fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eum et al. (WO 2020/009381). Copies of the original and a machine translation are included with this Office action.
Claim 1: Compound 134 of Eum et al., which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
194
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 15), anticipates Formula 1 of claim 1. As applied to Formula 1, compound 134 has Ar equal to a phenyl-substituted phenyl or biphenyl depending on how one applies the limitations for Ar as claimed, L1 equal to a single bond, L2 equal to a C5 heteroaryl group (pyridine), Z1-Z3 and Z5-Z8 equal to CRz with all Rz equal to hydrogen, Z4 equal to C which is bonded to L2, R equal to methyl, X equal to O, X1-X6 equal to CRx with all Rx equal to hydrogen, and Y1-Y5 equal to CRy with all Ry equal to hydrogen.
Claim 2: In compound 134, X is O, thereby anticipating claim 2.
Claim 3: In compound 134, all X1-X6, all Y1 to Y5, and all Z1-Z4 are selected from CRx, CRy, and CRz, respectively with Z4 being joined to L2, thereby anticipating claim 3.
Claim 4: In compound 134, L1 is a single bond and L2 is an unsubstituted C5 arylene, thereby anticipating claim 4.
Claims 6 and 17: In compound 134, all Rx, Ry, and Rz are equal to hydrogen, thereby anticipating claims 6 and 17.
Claims 7 and 18: In compound 134, both R groups are equal to methyl, thereby anticipating claims 7 and 18.
Claims 8 and 19: In compound 134, Ar is equal to a phenyl-substituted phenyl group or a biphenyl group depending on how one applies the limitations for Ar, both of which anticipate claims 8 and 19.
Claims 10 and 11: The device examples of Eum et al. is drawn to an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer, a second hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, an emission layer comprising a host material, a dopant [Ir(ppy)3], a hole blocking layer, an electron injection layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0306 and and Table 3). The compounds disclosed by Eum et al. which includes compound 134 are employed as a host material. As such, the preparation of a device in the manner described in Table 3 which employs compound 134 as a host material would have been at once envisaged. Such a device anticipates all of the device and structural limitations of claims 10 and 11.
Claim 12: The exemplified phosphorescent dopant is Ir(ppy)3 which anticipates the formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q with m equal to 3, n and q equal to zero, m + n + q equal to 3, which is the oxidation state of metal M which is iridium, ligand La anticipates Formula 2 of claim 12 with C1 equal to pyridine, and C2 equal to benzene.
Claim 15: In the preparation of compound 134, the crude reaction mixture can properly be referred to as a compound composition comprising the compound according to claim 1, thereby anticipating claim 134. Additionally, the simple characterization of compound 134 inherently requires preparing at least a solution of compound 134 in a solvent so as to obtain its mass spec or NMR properties, which also anticipates claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, 13, 14, and 16 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. Eum et al. does not teach or suggest compounds which satisfy those of claims 5, 9, and 16. Additionally, Eum et al. does not teach or suggest employing a host material which is comprised a first host compound and a second host compound as required by claims 13 and 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights