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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 2, 6 and 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 objection
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The plurality of host materials” should read “The second host material”, because the first host materials as listed in the claim 7 do not require substituents as recited in the claim 2. 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 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 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Jeon et al (US 2020/0083458, ‘458 hereafter) in view of Moon et al (US 2019/0288222, ‘222 hereafter).
Regarding claims 2,6 and 7, ‘458 discloses an organic electroluminescent device ([0006] and [0042]-[0046]) comprising an anode, a cathode and a light-emitting layer comprising a first host material ([0139], [0142], [0143]) being an organic electroluminescent compound represented by following chemical formulae (see page 73, 74, 79, compounds 46, 49, 81 and the like listed in [0122] from page 65 to page 94):
PNG
media_image1.png
268
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
415
485
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
269
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The formulae are position isomers of instantly claimed formulae as recited in the present claim 7 (The formulae listed are position isomers of H1-72, , H1-90, H1-177).
Case law holds that position isomers are prima facie structurally obvious even in the absence of an explicit teaching to modify. “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). (See MPEP 2144.09 II). ‘458 also discloses that the light emitting layer may contain a second host material including a carbazole-based compound ([0142], [0163], [0188]), but does not set forth the second carbazole compound satisfying instantly claimed chemical formula (2-2). However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘222 discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer which contains two carbazole-based compounds as host material and a phosphorescent dopant ([0022]-[0043]), one of the carbazole compound having chemical structure reading upon instantly claimed chemical formula (2-2) as in claims 6 and 7 ([0044]-[0058], specific compound B-28 to B33, B-198 to B-202, Table 2). “222 also discloses that the host compounds used in the light emitting layer provide a light emitting device having excellent luminous efficiency and lifespan (Table 2, [0101]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the host compound of formula (2-2) as taught by ‘222, to modify the light emitting layer of ‘458, in order to render a light emitting device having better efficiency and lifespan. ‘458 also discloses that the light emitting layer contains a phosphorescent dopant which is a metal complex compound ([0046]-[0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed in the paragraph 8 above, ‘458 discloses position isomers of the presently claimed first host material, which are prima facia structurally obvious even in the absence of an explicit teaching to modify.
Conclusion
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