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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on July 30, 2026.
Claim 4 has been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 1 has been cancelled previously.
Claims 2 – 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed July 30, 2026 caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 4 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park and further in view of Inoue as set forth in the office action filed April 30, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that as shown in Table 2 of the specification and Fig. 17, a light emitting element including compound (100) has high efficiency and high reliability which provides evidence as to the non-obviousness of the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). Regarding (i), Kim is considered to be the closest prior art, however a comparison has not been made between the compounds of Kim and the inventive compounds. Regarding (ii), Examiner notes that the claims are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that the handful of compounds shown in the Examples represent a small subset of the compounds encompassed by the range of variables in Formula (G1). Furthermore, Examiner notes that the device Examples all require the use of the compound with a particular dopant, and a second host material, in a light emitting layer of the OLED, limitations that are not required by claim 2.
Applicant argues that neither Kim nor Park teach an organic compound with the claimed feature of R2 being hydrogen and that the claimed organic compound and light emitting devices could not be arrived at from the cited references. Applicant argues that a prior art reference should provide more than a listing or possibility of numerous alternatives but should have some sort of teaching to point a reader to the claimed compound. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office submits a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Office action mailed April 30, 2026 as the prior art renders obviousness and teaches each required component of the instant claims. Each specific component of claimed compounds is discussed and addressed in the rejection. Applicant sets forth a chemical formula which encompasses a large number of compounds where each variable is selected from many defined possibilities. Applicant does not claim merely a single species, but a large number of compounds according to formula (G1). Similarly, Kim sets forth a chemical structural formula with disclosed and defined variable groups and Kim is analogous art. Just as applicant sets forth that one of ordinary skill in the art could form compounds from a disclosed, broadly defined chemical formula including compounds not expressly set forth as example compounds, the Office submits one of the same skill in the art would know how to make compounds from a chemical structural formula teaching in Kim. The Office additionally notes “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)). Kim teaches every required component to meet the claim limitations. Kim’s teachings suggest that each derivative disclosed within the expressly defined formula is predictably functional for use in an EL device as there is no teaching away from any of the compounds within the defined formula. Per MPEP 2123, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).” Applicant argues the rejection does not articulate a rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would navigate the vast array of possible compounds encompassed by Kim reference so as to arrive at the claimed compounds of the instant application. As previously stated, Kim’s teachings suggest that each derivative disclosed within the expressly defined formula is predictably functional for use in an EL device as there is no teaching away from any of the compounds within the defined formula.
Applicant argues that the compound of Kim are naphthofuropyrimidine compounds and the compounds of Inuoe are benzofuropyrimidine, therefore the compounds are not the same or similar and it is not proper to combine Inuoe with the teachings of Kim and Park. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both the compounds of Kim and Inuoe contain an aza-substituted benzofuran group and are used as host materials in OLED devices. Therefore, while the compounds of Kim have an extended polycyclic condensation, it is the Office’s position that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized the structural similarity of the compounds, and when taken in combination with the similar utility of the compounds in an OLED device, concluded that the compounds of Kim would behave similarly to those of Inuoe in a two host system, including exhibiting the same benefits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 6 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20170141331A1) in view of Park (WO2017188676, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 2, 6, 7, and 9, Kim teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising an organic compound represented by General Formula (G1)
PNG
media_image1.png
94
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches Chemical Formula 1 in [0010]
PNG
media_image2.png
83
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where Y can be C or N and at least one Y is N. Kim teaches that at least one substituent off of the aza-substituted ring is of the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
40
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0050 – 0053]). Kim teaches compound A-113 as an example of these compounds.
PNG
media_image4.png
199
313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In compound A-113, the nitrogen substituted ring in the chemical formula 1 is a pyrimidine group instead of the claimed pyrazine group. However, Chemical Formula 1 of Kim allows for any of the Y positions in the ring to be a nitrogen, so it would have been obvious to switch the positions of the nitrogen and the C-R1 groups of the structures of Kim to arrive at the claimed structures. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to select a pyrazine group over the specific pyrimidine group because Park teaches that a fused pyrazine type substituent has better electron transfer characteristics than the fused pyrimidine type substituent ([568]). When modified in this way, compound A-113 reads on the claimed formula wherein Q is oxygen, Ar1 is represented by (t1)
PNG
media_image5.png
161
107
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, where R3 – R8 are all hydrogen so that the whole compound reads on G1-1
PNG
media_image6.png
149
159
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 6; R1 is a group represented by General Formula (u1)
PNG
media_image7.png
52
218
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where α represents an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 carbon atoms, namely a phenylene group as required by claim 9, n is an integer of 1 and A1 represents a unsubstituted dibenzofuran skeleton, represented by A1-13
PNG
media_image8.png
222
132
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 7. A-113 does not show that the other substituent off of the aza ring is a hydrogen, as claimed, but the definitions for Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 allow for hydrogen substituents, and Kim teaches compounds with hydrogen substituents, such as that shown in compound A-1
PNG
media_image9.png
117
231
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, so it would have been obvious to provide a hydrogen at the claimed R2 position. Regarding the specific substituents claimed, as Kim does not require the group represented by Chemical Formula A to be in any specific location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place it in any suitable location, including the R1 location as claimed, resulting in hydrogen in the R2 position.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of excellent electrical characteristics and thermal stability as taught by Kim ([0020]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 8, the modified compound of Kim teaches that A1 represents an unsubstituted dibenzofuran skeleton, represented by A1-13. The modified compound does not teach that n represents 2. However, in the definitions for L, Kim teaches that L may be a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 arylene group ([0056]). Kim also reaches specific compounds, such as compound A-41
PNG
media_image10.png
282
368
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in which the linker group is a biphenylene group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the previously modified compound of Kim and arrive at a compound wherein n is 2 as claimed.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of excellent electrical characteristics and thermal stability as taught by Kim ([0020]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 3 – 5, and 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20170141331A1) in view of Park (WO2017188676, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 2 and 6 – 9 and further in view of Inoue (US20140291645A1).
As per claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 13 and 14, Kim teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a light-emitting substance and a first organic compound, wherein the light-emitting substance is a phosphorescent material ([0075]: “The organic compound may be included as a host of the emission layer 130, for example a phosphorescent host.”)
Wherein the first organic compound is represented by General Formula (G1)
PNG
media_image1.png
94
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches Chemical Formula 1 in [0010]
PNG
media_image2.png
83
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where Y can be C or N and at least one Y is N. Kim teaches that at least one substituent off of the aza-substituted ring is of the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
40
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0050 – 0053]). Kim teaches compound A-113 as an example of these compounds.
PNG
media_image4.png
199
313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In compound A-113, the nitrogen substituted ring in the chemical formula 1 is a pyrimidine group instead of the claimed pyrazine group. However, Chemical Formula 1 of Kim allows for any of the Y positions in the ring to be a nitrogen, so it would have been obvious to switch the positions of the nitrogen and the C-R1 groups of the structures of Kim to arrive at the claimed structures. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to select a pyrazine group over the specific pyrimidine group because Park teaches that a fused pyrazine type substituent has better electron transfer characteristics than the fused pyrimidine type substituent ([568]). When modified in this way, compound A-113 reads on the claimed formula wherein Q is oxygen, Ar1 is represented by (t1)
PNG
media_image5.png
161
107
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, where R3 – R8 are all hydrogen so that the whole compound reads on G1-1
PNG
media_image6.png
149
159
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 10; R1 is a group represented by General Formula (u1)
PNG
media_image7.png
52
218
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where α represents an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 carbon atoms, namely a phenylene group as required by claim 13, n is an integer of 1 and A1 represents a unsubstituted dibenzofuran skeleton, represented by A1-13
PNG
media_image8.png
222
132
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 11. A-113 does not show that the other substituent off of the aza ring is a hydrogen, as claimed, but the definitions for Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 allow for hydrogen substituents, and Kim teaches compounds with hydrogen substituents, such as that shown in compound A-1
PNG
media_image9.png
117
231
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, so it would have been obvious to provide a hydrogen at the claimed R2 position. Regarding the specific substituents claimed, as Kim does not require the group represented by Chemical Formula A to be in any specific location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place it in any suitable location, including the R1 location as claimed, resulting in hydrogen in the R2 position.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of excellent electrical characteristics and thermal stability as taught by Kim ([0020]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Kim teaches that due to the nitrogen in the ring structure, the inventive compounds easily accept electrons ([0040]). Kim also teaches that the organic compound may be used in the emission layer alone or as part of a mixture ([0074]). Kim does not teach:
The light-emitting device comprises a second organic compound which is a hole-transport material, wherein the first organic compound and the second organic compound form an exciplex
Inoue teaches compounds of Formula (G2)
PNG
media_image11.png
198
268
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0021]), which is similar to the compound of Kim in that it is an aza-substituted dibenzofuran. Inoue teaches that these compounds can be used as a host material ([0012]), which is the same functionality as Kim. Inoue teaches that when a phosphorescent substance is used as the light-emitting substance, it is preferable that the light emitting layer has a third substance so that the combination of the host material and the third substance can form an exciplex in order to maximize the efficiency of energy transfer ([0178 - 0179]). Inoue teaches that to form an exciplex, there is a compound that readily accepts electrons and a compound which readily accepts holes ([0180]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional material in the emission layer of Kim, wherein the additional compound forms an exciplex with the first compound as claimed motivated by the desire to predictably increase the efficiency of the energy transfer within an OLED as taught by Inoue ([0178 – 0179]). It further would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a hole-transport material as the second material, because Kim teaches that the inventive compounds accept electrons ([0040]) and Inoue teaches that these types of compounds should be paired with compounds that readily accept holes, i.e. a hole-transport material, in order to form an exciplex ([0180]).
As per claim 12, the modified compound of Kim teaches that A1 represents a unsubstituted dibenzofuran skeleton, represented by A1-13. The modified compound does not teach that n represents 2. However, in the definitions for L, Kim teaches that L may be a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 arylene group ([0056]). Kim also reaches specific compounds, such as compound A-41
PNG
media_image10.png
282
368
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in which the linker group is a biphenylene group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the previously modified compound of Kim and arrive at a compound wherein n is 2 as claimed.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of excellent electrical characteristics and thermal stability as taught by Kim ([0020]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 4 and 15, Kim teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a light-emitting substance, and a first organic compound ([0075]: “The organic compound may be included as a host of the emission layer 130, for example a phosphorescent host.”)
Wherein the first organic compound is represented by Formula (100)
PNG
media_image12.png
136
282
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches Chemical Formula 1 in [0010]
PNG
media_image2.png
83
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Kim teaches that at least one substituent off of the aza-substituted ring is of the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
40
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0050 – 0053]). Kim teaches a list of options for Ar2 that include the dibenzofuran group and the triphenylene group shown in the compounds above ([0057]). Another option for Ar2 is dibenzothiophene ([0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a linking group with a diphenylene group and an Ar2 group that contains dibenzothiophene. In compound F-107, the nitrogen substituted ring in the chemical formula 1 is a pyrimidine group instead of the claimed pyrazine group. However, Chemical Formula 1 of Kim allows for any of the Y positions in the ring to be a nitrogen, so it would have been obvious to switch the positions of the nitrogen and the C-R1 groups of the structures of Kim to arrive at the claimed structures. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to select a pyrazine group over the specific pyrimidine group because Park teaches that a fused pyrazine type substituent has better electron transfer characteristics than the fused pyrimidine type substituent ([568]). Compound F-107 does not show that the other substituent off of the aza ring is a hydrogen, as claimed, but the definitions for Kim’s Chemical Formula 1 allow for hydrogen substituents, and Kim teaches compounds with hydrogen substituents, such as that shown in compound A-1
PNG
media_image9.png
117
231
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, so it would have been obvious to modify compound F-107 to provide a hydrogen at the claimed R position and arrive at the claimed compound.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of excellent electrical characteristics and thermal stability as taught by Kim ([0020]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Kim teaches that due to the nitrogen in the ring structure, the inventive compounds easily accept electrons ([0040]). Kim also teaches that the organic compound may be used in the emission layer alone or as part of a mixture ([0074]). Kim does not teach:
The light-emitting device comprises a second organic compound which is a hole-transport material, wherein the first organic compound and the second organic compound form an exciplex
Inoue teaches compounds of Formula (G2)
PNG
media_image11.png
198
268
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0021]), which is similar to the compound of Kim in that it is an aza-substituted dibenzofuran. Inoue teaches that these compounds can be used as a host material ([0012]), which is the same functionality as Kim. Inoue teaches that when a phosphorescent substance is used as the light-emitting substance, it is preferable that the light emitting layer has a third substance so that the combination of the host material and the third substance can form an exciplex in order to maximize the efficiency of energy transfer ([0178 - 0179]). Inoue teaches that to form an exciplex, it requires a compound that readily accepts electrons and a compound which readily accepts holes ([0180]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional material in the emission layer of Kim, wherein the additional compound forms an exciplex with the first compound as claimed motivated by the desire to predictably increase the efficiency of the energy transfer within an OLED as taught by Inoue ([0178 – 0179]). It further would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a hole-transport material as the second material, because Kim teaches that the inventive compounds accept electrons ([0040]) and Inoue teaches that these types of compounds should be paired with compounds that readily accept holes, i.e. a hole-transport material, in order to form an exciplex ([0180]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on (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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights