DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received September 5, 2025. No claims were amended. Claims 3 and 5-8 are pending.
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.
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO 2015/156587 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0374722 A1).
Ahn et al. teaches electroluminescent devices comprising an organic layer comprising a multi-component host between an anode and a cathode (see abstract, par. 9), which may include formula (2) (see par. 10, 29-56):
PNG
media_image1.png
142
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
A specific formula 2 compound includes at least the following compound #H2-499, which is the same as instant formula 2 compound H2-9 of instant claim 7 (see par. 95, 158):
PNG
media_image2.png
142
84
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Ahn formula 2 compounds are used in an organic layer of a device and the layer may further comprise an additional host, which can include a diarylamino group (see par. 28 and/or 52). While Ahn et al. teaches further first host that may include a diarylamine (see par. 28) or an additional second host with diarylamine (see par. 52), Ahn et al. does not appear to teach specific organic functional layer materials the same as instant “first host” arylamine formula 1-3. In analogous art, Kim et al. teaches the following formula 2 for an organic electroluminescent device (see Kim par. 13):
PNG
media_image3.png
113
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
More specifically, Formula 2 may be represented by Formula 14 (see Kim par. 72):
PNG
media_image4.png
169
288
media_image4.png
Greyscale
L may be selected as C6 arylene group (see Kim par. 68, 73 and aryl is taught to include phenyl group in Kim par. 25-26) and Ar4 and Ar5 are may be C6 to C60 arylene (see Kim par. 68, 73 such as at least biphenyl per Kim par. 26). When a compound according to formula 14 contains a C6 arylene phenylene group as L and Ar4 and Ar5 as biphenyl, the resulting compound is the same as instant compound “H1-25” of claim 6. With respect to a combination of device materials for a light emitting of a light emitting device per instant claims 8, 3, and 5-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected an arylamine compound according to Kim et al. formula 14 such as a compound selected to include L as phenylene and Ar4 and Ar5 as biphenyl for use in a light emitting device according to Ahn et al. comprising Ahn et al. formula 2 material such as compound #H2-499 (per instant formula 2 and instant H2-9), because Ahn et al. teaches forming an organic functional layer comprised of formula 2 material and further host material such as one having an diarylamine group. One would expect the Kim et al. amine material of Formula 14 to be suitable as a host in an Ahn et al. device based upon the teaching it is useful as functional material for an organic electroluminescent device. One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising a combination of functional materials as disclosed by Ahn et al. and Kim et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With further respect to formula 2 of claims 8, 3 and 7, as discussed above, Ahn et al. teaches formula 2 and more specifically at least compound #H2-499 (see Ahn et al., par. 158), which is the same as instant claim 7 compound H2-9.
With further respect to instant formula 1-3 of claims 8 and 6, the Kim et al. arylamine formulas 2 or 14, as discussed above, meet the claim limitations by teaching as least a compound the same as instant “H1-25” (see Kim et al. 13, 25, 25, 68, 72, and 73).
Regarding claim 5, substituents are not required to be present. As discussed above, Ahn et al. and Kim et al. disclose compounds meeting the definitions of instant formulas “1-3” and formulas “2”, respectively.
With respect to device claim 8, Ahn et al. discloses a phosphorescent emitting dopant may be included in an electroluminescent layer (see Ahn et al., par. 191).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the remarks, applicant argues a required element of an Ahn et al. device is a specific bicarbazole derivative of formula (1), which is not present in the instantly-claimed devices. In response, the office submits the instant claims do not exclude other materials such as the bicarbazole derivative from being present in a device as open claim language is used. Applicant further argues the intended use of the amine compound of formula 14 in secondary reference Kim et al. is different from the claimed use. In response, the office maintains primary reference Ahn et al. teaches use of an amine compound and secondary reference Kim et al. teaches a specific amine derivative. With regard to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Additionally, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The office notes that independent claim 8 broadly claims a device with an organic functional layer between an anode and a cathode. The prior art teaches compounds the same as “first host compound” and “second host compound” as functional materials for a layer between electrodes in a light emitting device structure. The materials are predictably useful for a functional layer of a device. Further, additional materials suggested in the prior art yet not recited in the instant claims are not explicitly excluded from the present claim language. The obviousness rejection is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786