DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 16 are pending.
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 are rejected.
Claim 8 is objected.
Claims 10 – 16 are withdrawn.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1 – 7 and 9 as being unpatentable over Ahn WO2017/30283 A1 as evidenced by https://www.gigacalculator.com /calculators/half-life-calculator.php in view of Moon et al. WO 2018/151470 A1 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to recite the scope, wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
330
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examination: Applicant’s amendments necessitate extending the search in accordance with MPEP §803.02. The search has been further extended to include the scope, wherein in the compound of formula 2:
Ar2 represents a 17-membered heteroaryl, wherein the 17-membered heteroaryl is a phenanthrothiazolyl substituted with an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, line 12: The phrase “… a phenoxazinyl, a (C6-C30)aryl substituted with at least one…” is grammatically incorrect because it is missing a coordinating conjunction “and” between the last two Markush group of alternatives. In order to overcome the objection, Applicant may amend the phrase as follows: “… a phenoxazinyl, and a (C6-C30)aryl substituted with at least one…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn WO2017/030283 A1 (pub. February 23, 2017) as evidenced by https://www.gigacalculator.com /calculators/half-life-calculator.php (Accessed: March 28, 2024) in view of Moon et al. WO 2018/151470 A1 (publ. August 23, 2018).
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Ahn teaches organic electroluminescent compounds represented by formula 1 and organic electroluminescent devices comprising said compounds. See, e.g., paragraphs [9] and [22]. Ahn teaches that “low driving voltage, excellent efficiency, and a significantly improved operative lifespan of an organic electroluminescent device could be achieved by using a phenanthrene compound, in which a 5-membered heteroaryl is condensed with a side benzene ring of the phenanthrene backbone, as a host or in the electron buffer layer”. See, e.g., paragraph [8]. Ahn specifically teaches the compounds C-27 – C-30 (See, e.g., paragraphs [50]-[51]) as presented below:
PNG
media_image2.png
241
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ahn teaches that the organic electroluminescent material comprising said compounds can also further include “conventional materials generally used in organic electroluminescent materials”. See, e.g., paragraph [64]. Ahn teaches that the organic electroluminescent device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer between the first and
second electrodes. “One of the first and second electrodes may be an anode, and the other may be a cathode”. See, e.g., paragraphs [65]-[66]. Ahn further teaches that the compound can be “comprised in the light-emitting layer as a host material or in an electron buffer layer … If necessary, another compound besides the organic electroluminescent compound of formula 1 may be comprised as a second host material”. See, e.g., paragraph [67].
Ahn does not teach the plurality of host materials comprising a second host material comprising the compound of formula 2.
Moon et al. teach an organic electroluminescence device comprising an organic electroluminescent compound. The device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer between the electrodes. The compound is contained in an electron transport layer and/or an electron buffer layer, within the organic layer. See, e.g., Abstract, and paragraph [82]. Moon specifically teaches the organic electroluminescent compound C-111 (See, e.g., paragraph [68]) as presented below:
PNG
media_image3.png
360
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Compared to claim 1, Ahn does not explicitly teach the plurality of host materials comprising a second host material comprising the compound of formula 2.
Rationale for a prima facie case of obviousness
Ahn teaches organic electroluminescent compounds represented by formula 1. See, e.g., paragraphs [9]-[10]. The compound of formula 1 is presented below:
PNG
media_image4.png
241
374
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Ahn further specifically teaches that the compound of formula 1 includes similar compounds C-24 and C-39 (See, e.g., Device Examples 1 and 3, paragraphs [190]-[194] and [198]-[200]. The compounds C-24 and C-39 are presented below:
PNG
media_image5.png
414
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Ahn presents that the organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound C-24 as a host material has a luminance of 1,000 cd/m2, and a luminous efficiency of 24.4 cd/A at 4.4 V. With an early luminance of 100%, the time taken to be reduced to 90% of the luminance at 5,0000 nits was at least 43 hours. See, e.g., paragraph [194]. Similarly, the organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound C-39 as a host material has a luminance of 1,000 cd/m2, and a luminous efficiency of 22.9 cd/A at 4.5 V. With an early luminance of 100%, the time taken to be reduced to 90% of the luminance at 5,0000 nits was at least 38 hours. See, e.g., paragraph [200]. Using half-life calculator, https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/half-life-calculator.php, the half-life of the organic electroluminescent device of Examples 1 and 3 was calculated to be 283 hours and 250 hours respectively.
Moon et al. teach an organic electroluminescence device comprising an organic electroluminescent compound. The device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer between the electrodes. The compound is contained in an electron transport layer and/or an electron buffer layer, within the organic layer. See, e.g., Abstract, and paragraph [82]. The organic layer may also comprise additional light-emitting layer, hole transport layer, electron blocking layer, hole blocking layer, or electron transport layer. See, e.g., paragraph [83]. Each hole transport layer, electron blocking layer, hole blocking layer, or electron transport layer can use a plurality of compounds. See, e.g., paragraphs [84]-[85]. According to MPEP §2141(III), one of the rationales in the KSR decision states “(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Moon teaches that the device comprising the compound of formula I possesses superior improved light-emitting efficiency and electroluminescent properties in terms of luminous efficiency. See, e.g., Tables 1-2. Ahn teaches that the organic electroluminescent material comprising the compounds C-27 – C-30 can also further include “conventional materials generally used in organic electroluminescent materials”. See, e.g., paragraph [64]. These organic electroluminescent material can further comprise another compound as a second host material. See, e.g., paragraph [67]. Moon et al. teach that the organic electroluminescence device comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer between the electrodes. The organic layer may also comprise additional layers and each of the layers can further comprise a plurality of said compounds. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have observed that it is critical and would have been motivated to combine an appropriate electroluminescent compound as the first host material with the benzo[c]phenanthren-5-yl compound as the second host material in order to improve the overall performance of the material layers. The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success that the compounds can be used for the purpose of making plurality of host materials comprising a first host material comprising the compounds C-27 – C-30, and a second host material comprising the compound C-57.
The prior art would have rendered the instant claims prima facie obvious as presented below:
Claims 1 – 2 and 4, directed to a plurality of host materials:
PNG
media_image6.png
415
865
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
One of X1 and Y1 represents –N=, and the other of X1 and Y1 represents -O- or -S-;
a is 1; R1 represents an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
b is 2, each R2 are H;
c is 2; each R3 is H;
d is 3, each R4 is H;
L1 represents a single bond;
R5 and R6 represent unsubstituted C6 aryl, C6 aryl substituted with 13-membered heteroaryl (further substituted with C6 aryl), C6 aryl substituted with C6 aryl, and C13 aryl substituted with two C1 alkyl; and
PNG
media_image7.png
207
865
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein:
T5 and T6 are linked to each other to form a ring represented by the following formula 3:
PNG
media_image8.png
119
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
;
T1 to T4, and T8 to T14 each represent H;
T7 represents -L2-Ar2-;
L2 represents a single bond; and
Ar2 represents a 17-membered heteroaryl, wherein the 17-membered heteroaryl is a phenanthrothiazolyl substituted with an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl); or alternatively,
T1 to T4, T7 to T9 and T11 to T14 each represent H;
T10 represents -L2-Ar2-;
L2 represents a single bond; and
Ar2 represents a 17-membered heteroaryl, wherein the 17-membered heteroaryl is a phenanthrothiazolyl substituted with an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl).
Claim 3, wherein the formula 1 (compound C-27) is represented by the formula 1-2:
PNG
media_image9.png
217
253
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein:
a is 1; R1 represents an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
b is 2, each R2 are H;
c is 2; each R3 is H;
d is 3, each R4 is H;
L1 represents a single bond;
R5 and R6 represent unsubstituted C6 aryl and C6 aryl substituted with 13-membered heteroaryl (further substituted with C6 aryl).
The formula 1 (compounds C-28 – C-30) are represented by formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image10.png
389
350
media_image10.png
Greyscale
a is 1; R1 represents an unsubstituted C6 aryl;
b is 2, each R2 are H;
c is 2; each R3 is H;
d is 3, each R4 is H;
L1 represents a single bond;
R5 and R6 represent C6 aryl substituted with C6 aryl, and C13 aryl substituted with two C1 alkyl.
Claim 5, wherein the formula 2 is represented by the formula 2-2:
PNG
media_image11.png
258
450
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein:
T5 and T6 are linked to each other to form a ring represented by the following formula 3:
PNG
media_image8.png
119
150
media_image8.png
Greyscale
;
T1 to T4, and T8 to T14 each represent H;
T7 represents -L2-Ar2-;
L2 represents a single bond; and
Ar2 represents a 17-membered heteroaryl, wherein the 17-membered heteroaryl is a phenanthrothiazolyl substituted with an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl); or alternatively,
T1 to T4, T7 to T9 and T11 to T14 each represent H;
T10 represents -L2-Ar2-;
L2 represents a single bond; and
Ar2 represents a 17-membered heteroaryl, wherein the 17-membered heteroaryl is a phenanthrothiazolyl substituted with an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl).
Claim 6, wherein the formula 2 is represented by the following formula:
PNG
media_image12.png
202
278
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein:
T1 to T4, and T8 to T14 each represent H;
T7 represents -L2-Ar2-;
L2 represents a single bond; and
Ar2 represents a 17-membered heteroaryl, wherein the 17-membered heteroaryl is a phenanthrothiazolyl substituted with an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl).
Claim 7, wherein the compounds represented by formula are
PNG
media_image13.png
334
1002
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 9, directed to an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one layer of the light-emitting layers comprises the plurality of host materials according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sagar Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-1317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Amy L. Clark can be reached at (571) 272-1310. 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.
/Sagar Patel/Examiner, Art Unit 1626
/KAMAL A SAEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626