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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the rejections including Kim et al (WO 2019177407 A1, cited as US 20210043848 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 09/26/2025 has been withdrawn.
As noted in Applicant’s arguments, Kim explicitly states that the second host compound having the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
171
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
does not include carbazole as one of the groups X1 to X8 [claim 1]. So the first compound of the claims includes a condensed carbazole as one of these groups, in claimed Formula 1-a. So the skilled artisan would not be motivated to use the other compound of Kim in combination with the carbazole containing compound of Lee et al (KR 20150077220 A) and of claimed Formula 1-a.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there are unexpected results from combining the first and second compound of the claims, in the form of longer lifetime of the device. This argument is not convincing for the following reasons:
Any showing is clearly not commensurate in scope with the claims. Example 4 is the only example that uses a compound of claimed Formula 1-a in combination with a compound of claimed Formula 2-6. So there is only one example that address the combination of two hosts disclosed in Lee (KR 20150077220 A). The Formula 1-a and Formula 2-6 include many different compounds of varying structure.
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.
Claim 1, 3-6 and 8-29 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.
Claim 1 does not define the variables Ar2 and L2. For purposes of examination, the previous definition from the last set of claims will be considered as the definitions for these variables.
Claim 22 depends from claim 2, which is canceled.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 does not further limit claim 13, because claim 6 already limits H1 to H-1 to H-139, claim 12 already limits L1 to the same genus L-0 to L-27, and claim 13 already limits Ar1 to Ar-1 to Ar-53. Likewise, Claim 15 does not further limit claim 13 and 14, because claim 10 already limits H2 to H-1 to H-139, claim 12 already limits L2 to the same genus L-0 to L-27, and claim 13 already limits Ar2 to Ar-1 to Ar-53.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11, 16-25, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 20150077220 A).
Lee discloses an OLED comprising an organic layer with an organic compound [abstract] that may be used in combinations of two or more [p21] wherein specific examples include the following
PNG
media_image2.png
101
116
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[p27, Synthesis Example 2]
PNG
media_image3.png
144
208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p29] and other many other examples:
PNG
media_image4.png
193
615
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p16]. Each of these compounds and more read on the claimed Formula 1-a as well as the claimed Formula 2-6, and Lee explicitly teaches that they may be used in combinations of two or more [p21]. The above compounds are merely exemplary, and the generic formulae and additional examples also read on the claimed compounds.
The compounds are used as host materials the light emitting layer of the OLED [p21]. The layer also includes a phosphorescent dopant therein that is exemplified as (acac)Ir(btp)2 which the structure:
PNG
media_image5.png
92
113
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[pp5-6] which reads on the compounds of claims 18-20. The OLED may be used in a display panel [p7].
If Applicant argues that the claimed embodiments are not disclosed with sufficient specificity and that examiner is picking and choosing with improper hindsight, Examiner notes that the rejection is made under 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that there a finite number of disclosed exemplary compounds in Lee as well as the explicit disclosure of a combination of two or more hosts would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to prepare the claimed combination of the first compound and the second compound. The claims are obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-15 and 26-27 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Kim et al (WO 2019177407 A1, cited as US 20210043848 A1) discloses the second compound of the claims:
PNG
media_image6.png
215
245
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[claim 1]
PNG
media_image7.png
318
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[p179, along with many other embodiments].
Kim also discloses a compound similar to first compound of the claims of Formula 1-a having the formula (2):
PNG
media_image8.png
231
267
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
171
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Kim explicitly does not include carbazole as one of the groups X1 to X8 [claim 1]. So the first compound of the claims includes a condensed carbazole as one of these groups, in claimed Formula 1-a. So the skilled artisan would not be motivated to use the other compound of Kim in combination with the carbazole containing compound of Lee et al (KR 20150077220 A) and of claimed Formula 1-a.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766