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 July 7, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 were amended. Claims 1-9 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 2014/0231769 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (WO 2015099485 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment received July 7, 2026.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 2014/0231769 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (WO 2015/099485 A1) and in further view of Parham et al. (US 2019/0165282 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment received July 7, 2026.
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 1-9 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 contains the phrase “such as” in the second row on page 4 of the claim set. It is unclear if the groups that follow the phrase are required or optional in formulas 1-1 or 1-3. Clarification and/or correction are 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 2014/0231769 A1) in view of Lim et al. (WO 2017/086629 A1).
Nishimura et al. discloses organic electroluminescent devices including an organic layer comprising an emitting layer formed of a first host and a second host (see abstract). A first host is formed according to formula (1) with respect to instant formula 2 compound and a second host is formed according to formula (4) (see abstract).
With respect to instant second host of formula 2, Nishimura et al. formula (1) is the following (see par. 7) where A, Ar11, and Ar12 are defined in par. 10-12 and each X may be nitrogen atom:
PNG
media_image1.png
138
156
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
More specifically with respect to at least specific instant compound H-2-92 of instant formula 2 [Instant H-2-92 (of instant claim 8)]
PNG
media_image2.png
134
98
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
the Nishimura formula (1) corresponds where it is more specific formula (1-5) (see par. 87):
PNG
media_image3.png
218
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
and the A is formula (2) (see par. 73), which may be formula (2-1) (see par. 91). Linking group L1 may be selected as naphthalene (see par. 94) and the HAr1 is of formula (3) (see par. 75) where Y1 may be oxygen atom (see par. 80, 82):
PNG
media_image4.png
64
557
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
148
535
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Note that Z14 or Z15 may be the binding site to the triazine ring of formula 1-4 (see par. 81).
With respect to instant formula 1, a Nishimura second host may be an arylamine compound according to formula (30) or more specifically (30-A), (30-B), (30-C), or (30-D) (see par. 219). Nishimura et al. does not show an example arylamine compound the same as instant formula 1. In analogous art, secondary reference Lim et al. teaches arylamine compounds according to formula (1) as host material (see Lim par. 8-17):
PNG
media_image6.png
172
220
media_image6.png
Greyscale
When the Lim formula (1) has A ring as naphthyl (see Lim par. 12, 28), Ar3 as C6 arylene phenylene (Lim par. 13, 29), L1 as C6 arylene phenylene (see Lim par. 11, 27), Ar1 as phenyl and Ar2 as fluorene (Lim par. 13 and par. 29), the compound is the same as instant formula (1) compound “H-1-17” of instant claim 7 shown here:
PNG
media_image7.png
150
100
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
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 Lim et al. compound formula 1 as an arylamine host compound (such as a specific compound the same as instant H-1-17) for use in a light emitting layer in a device structure according to Nishimura et al., because Lim et al. teaches the compound is useful as an arylamine host material for an organic light emitting device. One would expect to achieve an operational light emitting device comprising the host materials as taught by Nishimura et al. and Lim et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to the claimed composition and the instant claim 9 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 materials as taught Nishimura et al. and Lim et al. One would expect the combination of disclosed host materials of also meeting the requirements of an instant formula (1) compound and formula (2) compound to be functional for use in an emitting layer as taught by Nishimura with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 2, a substituent is not expressly required.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, see above discussion of Lim et al. formula 1 definitions the same as a compound according to instant H-1-17 shown here:
PNG
media_image7.png
150
100
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 6, at least formula 2-11 is within Nishimura with respect to a compound the same as instant H-2-92 as discussed above.
With respect to claim 7, the above discussed secondary reference Lim et al. compound formula 1 discussed above may be the same as instant compound H-1-17 in claim 7.
With respect to claim 9, the host materials are part of a layer of a device between electrodes (see abstract, par. 227, and claim 1 on page 416).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 2014/0231769 A1) in view of Lim et al. (WO 2017/086629 A1) and in further view of Parham et al. (US 2019/0165282 A1).
Nishimura et al. and Lim et al. are relied upon as set forth above.
Nishimura et al. in view of Lim et al. teaches a light emitting device comprising a first and second host in the light emitting layer (see abstract) as discussed above. While Nishimura teaches a heterocyclic triazine-containing compound according to formula (1) as a host, it is not seen where Nishimura teaches the derivative specifically includes a 2-nitrogen heterocyclic group the same as shown in instant formula 2-2 of instant claim 5:
PNG
media_image8.png
118
155
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In analogous art, Parham et al. teaches at least compound #36 as a host material for a light emitting device:
PNG
media_image9.png
206
303
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(see Parham page 25).
Regarding a composition of instant claim 5, 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 functional materials as taught by Nishimura modified by Lim et al. and Parham as host materials for a light emitting layer of a device, because Nishimura teaches host material of formula 30 may be used in combination with other materials such as another host material in a light emitting layer. One would expect the Parham compound #36 to be similarly useful as a functional host material in a device structure according to Nishimura. One would expect to achieve a functional layer of an organic light emitting device comprising materials taught by Nishimura modified by Lim et al. and Parham with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights