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 Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 12/05/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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:
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.
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 1-2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al (WO2018021841, English equivalent US 2019/0312212, of record, ‘212 hereafter is cited in this office action) in view of Lee (US 2020/0203623, ‘623 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, ‘212 discloses a plurality of host materials comprising a first host material represented by following chemical formula reading upon instantly claimed formulae (1) and (1-2) as in claim 1([0022]-[0038], Compound C-90, page 16):
PNG
media_image1.png
299
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein X can be N or CR ([0011]), L can be a single bond, a C1-C30 alkylene group, C3-C30 cycloalkylene or an C6-C30 aryl group ([0012]), and Ar can be a C1-C30 alkyl group, C3-C30 cycloalkyl an C6-C30 aryl group, a heteroaryl group containing B, N, O, S or P, -NR1R2, or -SiR3R4R5 ([0013], [0014]). ‘212 also specifically name a compound as shown above reading upon H-1-137 as in the present claim 5 (Compound C-90, page 16). ‘212 discloses that the host materials further include a second host material which can be a compound having triazinyl-group (page 32-34, compounds B-73, B-73, B-87 and B-88) but does not specifically set forth the second host material having a chemical structure represented by one of the formulae 2-4 to 2-6 as recited in the present claim 1. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘623 discloses a compound having triazinyl-group being one of the host materials in a plurality of host materials represented by following chemical formulae ([0009]-0013], [0055]-[0093]) to render an organic electro-luminescent device having low driving voltage with improved luminous efficiency and lifespan ([0013], Examples):
PNG
media_image3.png
326
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The formula reads upon presently claimed chemical formula 2-5 which also are position isomers of the formulae (2-4 ) and (2-6) as in the present claim 1, wherein X1 is O or S, L3 is a single bond or an arylene group which connects to a substituted triazinyl group. In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the host material as taught by ‘623, to modify the host materials of ‘212, in order to render a host material having better performance in an organic electroluminescent device.
Regarding claim 7, modified ‘212 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘212 also discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising the host compounds and other components as claimed ([0071]-[0083], [0114]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for the allowance is that the prior art of record does not specifically disclose a host material as set forth in the present claim 1, wherein the second host material is one of the specific compounds as listed on the present claim 6.
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in light of Applicant's amendment.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights