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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 01/21/2026, which amends claims 1, 4, and 6-7, and cancels claim 2. Claims 1 and 4-8 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 01/21/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections over Ahn 2017 (WO 2017/065419 A1), Kondakova (US 2006/0134460 A1), and Ahn 2018 (US 2018/0208837 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Instant formula 2-2 is distinguished from Ahn 2017 given the limitation that Ar5 is limited to dibenzofuranyl or dibenzothiophenyl only, Examiner disagrees.
The limitation that a location analogous to instant Ar5 can be selected as dibenzofuranyl or dibenzothiophenyl is located in Ahn 2017 Formula (3) (paragraph 32), which defines two R5 as being linked to adjacent substituents to form a polycyclic aromatic ring (paragraph 42, lines 10-11), whose carbon atoms may be replaced with at least one heteroatom such as nitrogen (paragraph 42, lines 12-13), and examples of heteroaryls include dibenzofuranyl and dibenzothiophenyl (paragraph 43, lines 28-29).
Though such a combination is from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985), see also MPEP 2123.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the heteroaryl amine of Ahn 2017 does not meet the teachings of Kondakova because Kondakova teaches that the hole transport host is a “triarylamine”, Examiner disagrees.
At the outset, an artisan of ordinary skill would surely recognize that the term “aromatic” is an umbrella term which encompasses heteroaromatic compounds as well. As support for this assertion, Examiner points to Hückel’s rules of aromaticity, which can be met by aromatic compounds comprising heteroatoms as well.
Supposing that Applicant continues to assert that “amine-containing heteroaryl” and “triarylamine” are in direct contrast, Examiner asserts that Kondakova also teaches that tertiary amines are a suitable class of hole transporting compounds for use as a co-host and that the term “tertiary amine” is used to refer to monoarylamines, diarylamines, and triarylamines (paragraph 0024). In this definition, the compounds of Ahn 2017 are still candidates for relevant hole-transporting materials as they contain at least one carbocyclic aromatic group.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that the amendments overcome the prior art, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention. A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO 2017/065419 A1, herein after referred to as “Ahn 2017”) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2006/0134460 A1) and Ahn et al. (US 2018/0208837 A1, herein after referred to as “Ahn 2018”).
With respect to claim 1, Ahn 2017 discloses a first host material for use in the light emitting layer according to formula 1 (paragraph 61, lines 1-2), such as compound C-38 (page 10), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Ahn 2017 Formula (3) (paragraph 32), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ahn 2017 also teaches that two R5 are linked to adjacent substituents to form a polycyclic aromatic ring (paragraph 42, lines 10-11), whose carbon atoms may be replaced with at least one heteroatom such as nitrogen (paragraph 42, lines 12-13), and examples of heteroaryls include dibenzofuranyl.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula (2-2) when X2 is sulfur, all R groups are hydrogen atoms, a’ is 4, b’ is 2, c’ is 2, and e’ is 3, L3 is a single bond, Ar4 is a C12 aryl (biphenyl) group, and Ar5 is dibenzofuranyl.
Ahn 2017 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the compounds of instant formula (2-2) and Ahn 2017 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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, such a dibenzofuranyl, from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a compound which, when used in an OLED device, results increased luminous efficiency and decreased driving voltage (paragraphs 301 and 305), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, while Ahn 2017 teaches that the organic electroluminescent device may comprise any known phosphorescent host (paragraphs 61 and 62), Ahn 2017 does not teach a second host material of instant Formula 1.
In analogous art, Kondakova teaches an electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer with one hole transporting co-host and one electron transporting co-host and a phosphorescent emitter which provides a device which emits light with high luminous efficiency at low voltage (abstract).
Kondakova teaches the light emitting layer contains more than one host material in order to improve the device’s film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime and an example of a desirable hole transporting co-host may be any suitable hole transporting compound, such as an arylamine (paragraph 0023), and that an example of a desirable electron-transporting co-host is any suitable electron transporting compound such as a triazine (paragraph 0089).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the arylamine hole-transporting emission layer host material of Ahn 2017 in conjunction with an electron-transporting triazine emissive host material in order to improve the device’s film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova.
However, neither Ahn 2017 nor Kondakova teach the electron-transporting triazine containing emissive host material is a compound of instant Formula 1.
In analogous art, Ahn 2018 teaches a triazine containing emissive co-host material (paragraph 0046) for use with a phosphorescent dopant (paragraph 0049), according to formula (1) (paragraph 0011), such as Compound C-101 (paragraph 0041 and page 22), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
402
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Ahn 2018 formula (2) (paragraph 0023), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
406
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ahn 2018 also teaches that Ar2 is an unsubstituted 13-membered heteroaryl (paragraph 0031, line 3), and examples of heteroaryl include dibenzofuranyl (paragraph 0039, line 34).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-2) when X1 is nitrogen, Y1 is oxygen, L1 is a single bond, Ar1 is a substituted 6-membered heteroaryl (triazine), wherein the substituents are a phenyl and a dibenzofuranyl group, R11 is a C6 aryl, and all other R groups are hydrogen atoms, a is 2, b is 2, and d is 3.
Ahn 2018 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ahn 2018 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 result of a compound which, when used in an electroluminescent device, results in improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan (paragraph 0048), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the triazine-containing electron-transporting emissive co-host material of Ahn 2018 as the phosphorescent co-host in the device of Ahn 2017 in order to improve the driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan of the device, as taught by Ahn 2018.
With respect to claim 4, Ahn 2017, Kondakova, and Ahn 2018 teach the host materials of claim 1, and Ar1 in formula 1-2 is a substituted triazinyl, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Ahn 2017, Kondakova, and Ahn 2018 teach the host materials of claim 1, and the substituents of the substituted triazine are a C6 aryl (phenyl) and 13-membered heteroaryl (dibenzofuranyl), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 6, Ahn 2017, Kondakova, and Ahn 2018 teach the host materials of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that Ahn 2018 is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the dibenzofuranyl group to the triazine moiety. In this respect, Ahn 2018 teaches instant H1-145.
With respect to claim 7, Ahn 2017, Kondakova, and Ahn 2018 teach the host materials of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner notes that Ahn 2017 is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the amine to the heteropolycyclic core.
Given the general formula and teachings of Ahn 2017, 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 Compound C-38, pictured above, in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a hole-transporting host material in the emitting layer of the electroluminescent device of Ahn 2017 and possess the properties taught by Ahn 2017. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer is identical to any of instant C2-101 through C2-104.
With respect to claim 8, Ahn 2017, Kondakova, and Ahn 2018 teach the host materials of claim 1, and Ahn 2017 teaches the compound is a host in the emissive layer (paragraph 61) of an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, and a cathode (paragraphs 57 and 58).
Similarly, Kondakova teaches the host materials should be in the light emitting layer (abstract), and Ahn 2018 teaches the compound is a host in the emissive layer (paragraph 0046), as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the two co-hosts of Ahn 2017 and Ahn 2018 as a hole-transporting arylamine and electron transporting triazine composition in order to improve the device’s film morphology, electrical properties, and light emission efficiency, as taught by Kondakova.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786