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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 7, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment dated August 7, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 5 were amended. Claims 2, 3, and 8 are canceled claims. Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-14 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 4-7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020/036441 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment.
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, 4-7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2021/0408386 A1) in view of Kadoma et al. (US 2021/0175435 A1).
Song et al. teaches a light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer comprised of a first host, a second host, and a dopant (see abstract). Regarding instant claims 1 and 5 and a first and second anthracene-based compounds as a plurality of host materials, Song et al. a first host is according to Formula 1 (see par. 72)
PNG
media_image1.png
258
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
and a second host is according to Formula 4 (see par. 77):
PNG
media_image2.png
264
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Definitions of the variables are discussed at par. 78, 73-74. R1 and R2 groups are defined as C6 to C30 aryl or C6 to C30 heteroaryl and each L1 and L2 is independently arylene with each a and b as 0 or 1 and at least one is zero (see par. 73). It is not seen where a Formula 1 or 3 example compound was formed where a heteroaryl group was selected identical to a heteroaryl of instant HAr groups of instant first compound. In analogous art, Kadoma et al. teaches an anthracene compound including a specific heteroaryl group the same as instant group 1-1-3 of claim 1, which is identical to instant compound H2-108 of claim 5 for use as host material in an organic light emitting device (see Kadoma et al. compound #115 on page 15 or compound “PcgDBCPhA” on page 55):
PNG
media_image3.png
282
186
media_image3.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 an anthracene derivative as taught by Kadoma et al. as an anthracene compound for use in a Song et al. device structure, because the Kadoma et al. compound is within the general formula taught by Song et al. and one would expect the Kadoma et al. compound to be similarly useful as a host material in a device according to Song et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device using materials within the disclosure of Song et al. and Kadoma et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. Further, per MPEP 2144.06, “"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to combine two materials each known as useful as host material for a light emitting device.
Regarding instant formula 11 as a second host for instant claims 1 and 5, the Song et al. teaching of R1 and R2 groups as aryl meets the claim requirements of claims 1 and 5. Regarding claims 9 and 13, at least Song et al. compound “Host 42” is the same as instant H2-127 (see page 11).
Regarding claim 4, the compounds are not necessarily required to have a substituent and also, substituents are taught by Song et al. among the variable definitions of Formulas 1 and 3 (see par. 73-74, 78),
Regarding claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14, the anthracene host materials are taught as a combination for a light emitting layer of a light emitting device (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition with anthracene host materials according to Song et al. and Kadoma et al. as discussed above for a light emitting layer of a light emitting device, because the references teach the combination of anthracene derivative hosts are useful for forming a light emitting layer of a light emitting device. One would expect to achieve an operational device using a combination of materials within the disclosures of Song et al. and Kadoma et al. 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 ground of rejection does 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang, Jinhai, et al. "Unsymmetrically amorphous 9, 10-disubstituted anthracene derivatives for high-efficiency blue organic electroluminescence devices." Dyes and Pigments 89.2 (2011): 155-161.
The non-patent literature reference discusses anthracene-based materials for a light emitting device. The article is considered relevant to the state of the art.
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