DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 29, 2025 has been entered.
The amendment dated September 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 7 were amended. Claim 4 is canceled. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0104163 A1) in view of Moon et al. (WO 2018/021841 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment received September 29, 2025 and the cancellation of instant compound 2-2 in independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites definitions for variables X13 to X25, but there is no chemical structure presently recited that contains the variables. Accordingly, X13 to X25 are not understood and their presence render the claim indefinite. Further, the remaining claims depend on claim 1 and are included in the rejection.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0104163) in view of Yang et al. (WO 2018/159964 A1).
Lee et al. teaches triazine-containing derivatives of Formula I as a co-host material for an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract and par. 11). With respect to instant formula 1 compounds, Lee et al. teaches the following specific compound #5 according to the general formula I (see par. 77, page 8), which is the same as instant C-1:
PNG
media_image1.png
318
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Lee et al. teaches compounds of Formula I may be one of multiple host materials for an emissive layer of an organic light emitting device (see abstract). Further host material is described by Formula II carbazole-based derivatives (see abstract and par. 18). It is not seen where Lee et al. describes a further host material is a specific aromatic heterocyclic host compound according to instant formula 2-1 or 2-2. In analogous art, Yang et al. teaches compounds according to formula 1 (see Yan par. 8-15)) for a host material of a light emitting layer (see Yang et al. par. 21) per instant “second host compound” of instant formula “(2-1)”:
PNG
media_image2.png
156
243
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
89
213
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
At least specific formula 1 compound C-2 (see Yang et al. par. 46) is the same as instant claim 7 compound H-26:
PNG
media_image4.png
136
88
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding the claimed composition (claims 1-3 and 5-7) and instant claim 8 device, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined host material as taught by Lee et al. according to Formula I (such as at least a compound #5 the same as instant “C-1”) and a host material for a light emitting layer according to Yang et al. formula 1 (such as at least specific compound C-2), because Lee et al. teaches host material of Formula I compounds may be used in combination with other host materials for a light emitting layer. One would expect the Yang et al. formula 1 material to be similarly useful as a host material in a device structure according to Lee et al. One would expect to achieve a functional layer of an organic light emitting device comprising the materials taught by Lee et al. and Yang et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With further respect to claim 2, Lee et al. teaches Formula I compounds comprise a triazine group (see Lee et al. par. 11-14) per instant formula (1-1).
With further respect to claim 3, Yang et al. Formula 1 is defined to comprise instant group 2-1-1 (see Yang et al. par. 8-10, 46). With further respect to claim 5, Yang et al. -La-Ar moiety may include aryl groups (see Yang et al. par. 26-28, 46).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0104163) in view of KR 10-2015-0121337 A (cited by applicant on the 1/29/2021 I.D.S.; Google Patents translation attached to this office action and referenced below).
Lee et al. teaches triazine-containing derivatives of Formula I as a co-host material for an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract and par. 11). With respect to instant formula 1 compounds of instant claim 1, Lee et al. teaches the following specific compound #5 according to the general formula I (see par. 77, page 8), which is the same as instant C-1 of instant claim 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
318
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Lee et al. teaches compounds of Formula I may be one of multiple host materials for an emissive layer of an organic light emitting device (see abstract). Further host material is described by Formula II carbazole-based derivatives (see abstract and par. 18). It is not seen where Lee et al. describes a further host material is a specific aromatic heterocyclic host compound according to instant formula 2-1 of instant claim 1. In analogous art, KR ‘337 et al. teaches compounds according to formula 1 where heteroatoms X and Y are NAr1, S or O (see KR ‘337 claim 1 or page 1 of translation copy) for a host material of a light emitting layer (see page 41/61 of translation copy) per instant “second host compound” of instant formula “(2-1)” noting that instant adjacent X groups may be linked:
PNG
media_image5.png
258
274
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding the claimed composition (claims 1-3, 5, and 6) and instant claim 8 device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined host material as taught by Lee et al. according to Formula I (such as at least a compound #5 the same as instant “C-1”) and a host material for a light emitting layer according to KR ‘337 formula 1, because Lee et al. teaches host material of Formula I compounds may be used in combination with other host materials for a light emitting layer. One would expect the KR ‘337 formula 1 material to be similarly useful as a host material in a device structure according to Lee et al. One would expect to achieve a functional layer of an organic light emitting device comprising the materials taught by Lee et al. and KR ‘337 with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With further respect to claim 2, Lee et al. teaches Formula I compounds comprise a triazine group (see Lee et al. par. 11-14) per instant formula (1-1).
With further respect to claim 3, in KR ‘337 Formula 1 note that instant R groups as defined for instant formula 2-1-1 may link to form a ring. Further regarding claim 5, corresponding aryl groups attached to the polycyclic core in a KR ‘337 Formula 1 compound may include at least phenyl (see page 2/61 in translation copy).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The office acknowledges applicant’s statement in the remarks filed on September 29, 2025 with respect to exception 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), but the statement is not considered persuasive to overcome the current rejection over Lee in view of Yang for the following reasons:
Applicant has provided a submission in this file that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the secondary prior art reference (Yang et al.) were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials Korea Ltd. not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although subject matter disclosed in the reference Yang et al. (WO 2018/159964 A1) has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Note that the Yang et al. reference WO 2018/159964 A1 publication date (September 7, 2018) qualifies under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in light of the fact that there is no certified translation of the foreign priority document of the instant application in the application file. The instant application relies on one priority document having filing date July 31, 2018, but there is no certified translation of this document in order to perfect the foreign priority date.
Conclusion
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