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 24, 2026. Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, and 12 were amended. Claim 15 is new. Claim 4 is a cancelled claim. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2018/0337361 A1) as set forth in the last office action is withdrawn due to the amendment.
The amended claims remain rejected for the reasons set forth below.
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, 7, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0337361 A1) in view of Min (US 2015/0001488).
Lee et al. teaches a combination of a first host represented by formula 1 and a second host represented by formula 2 (see par. 6-9 and19). Formula 2 is the following per instant formula 1 compound (see par. 7) of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Linking groups L21 to L23 may be single bond (see par. 9). At least one R21 to R23 is formula 2A (see par. 8):
PNG
media_image2.png
108
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The other two of the R21 to R23 groups may be selected as aryl or heteroaryl among other groups (see par. 8). A heteroaryl may include at least carbazole further substituted with aryl phenyl (see par. 43-44. A R24 group may be at least C6 aryl (e.g., phenyl) or heteroaryl (see par. 9, 41-44). Each X201 to X203 may be nitrogen per a triazine ring (see par. 8). A compound having the substituted carbazole as a R21 to R23 is the same as instant C-16, C-17, C-18, or C-19 of instant dependent claim 7. While a Formula 2 where the linking one of a L21 to L23 is single bond and the corresponding bonded R21 to R23 group is selected as the Formula 2A group and at least one is selected as a heteroaryl group such as substituted carbazole does not appear to be exemplified, the definition of formula 2 clearly provides for a compound with the defined group(s). Specific instant compounds of claims 2, 3, and 7 (such as at least compound C-16) are within the definition of Formula 2.
Lee et al. Formula 1 host compounds are carbazole compounds, but do not appear identical to instant Formula 3 compounds. In analogous art, Min teaches a light emitting device may comprise a plurality of host material (see abstract) and that one of those hosts may include at least a material according to formula 4 (see par. 64), which encompasses compounds the same as recited instant formula 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
234
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see Min par. 64).
More specifically, at least specific compound “2-943” of a Min formula 4 (see par. 124, page 40) is identical to instant compound “H2-1” of instant formula 3 shown in instant claim 9:
PNG
media_image4.png
222
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Min compound “2-943” at par. 124).
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 for use in a light emitting device including a host material of formula 2 as taught by Lee et al. (per instant formula 1) as discussed above and a host material of Min et al. formula 4 (per instant formula 3) as discussed above. One would expect host derivatives taught by Min to be similarly functional as a co-host material in an emitting layer within a light emitting device structure as taught by Lee. “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). Furthermore, case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., host material in a light emitting layer of an emitting device) supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclar & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). One would expect to achieve an operational device having a light emitting layer including known host materials as taught by Lee and Min within instant formulas 1 and 3, respectively, with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0337361 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020/027506 A1).
Lee et al. teaches a combination of a first host represented by formula 1 and a second host represented by formula 2 (see par. 6-9 and19). Formula 2 is the following per instant formula 1 compound (see par. 7) of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Linking groups L21 to L23 may be single bond (see par. 9). At least one R21 to R23 is formula 2A (see par. 8):
PNG
media_image2.png
108
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The other two of the R21 to R23 groups may be selected as aryl or heteroaryl among other groups (see par. 8). A heteroaryl may include at least carbazole further substituted with aryl phenyl (see par. 43-44. A R24 group may be at least C6 aryl (e.g., phenyl) or heteroaryl (see par. 9, 41-44). Each X201 to X203 may be nitrogen per a triazine ring (see par. 8). A compound having the substituted carbazole as a R21 to R23 is the same as instant C-16, C-17, C-18, or C-19 of instant dependent claim 7. While a Formula 2 where the linking one of a L21 to L23 is single bond and the corresponding bonded R21 to R23 group is selected as the Formula 2A group and at least one is selected as a heteroaryl group such as substituted carbazole does not appear to be exemplified, the definition of formula 2 clearly provides for a compound with the defined group(s). Specific instant compounds of claims 2, 3, and 7 (such as at least compound C-16) are within the definition of Formula 2.
Lee et al. Formula 1 compounds are an additional host, but are not the same host as instant formula 2. In analogous art, Kim et al. teaches a light emitting device may comprise a plurality of host material (see abstract) and that one of those hosts may include at least a material according to formula (1) (see par. 7-21), which encompasses compounds the same as instant formula 2 (of claims 1, 5, 6, and 8):
PNG
media_image5.png
212
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see Kim, par. 7).
More specifically, at least specific compound “C-1” of a Kim formula 1 (see par. 80) is identical to instant compound “H-1” of instant formula 2 shown in instant claim 8:
PNG
media_image6.png
132
120
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Kim compound “C-1” at par. 80).
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 for use in a light emitting device including a host material as taught by Lee et al. (per instant formula 1) and a host material of Kim et al. formula 1 (per instant formula 2) as discussed above. One would expect host derivatives taught by Kim to be similarly functional as host material in an emitting layer within a light emitting device structure as taught by Lee. “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). Furthermore, case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., host material in a light emitting layer of an emitting device) supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclar & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). One would expect to achieve an operational device having a light emitting layer including known host materials as taught by Lee and Kim within instant formulas 1 and 2, respectively, with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2011/0037027) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020/027506 A1).
Stoessel et al. teaches matrix materials for an emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract, par. 69). Per instant formula 1 of claim 1, the material may be according to formula (1) (see par. 8):
PNG
media_image7.png
172
326
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Formula 1 is defined such that X may be CR1 or N, Y may be single bond, and R1 may be groups such as aromatic ring system or heteroaromatic ring system (see par. 8-18, 25). The formula encompasses compounds the same as instant formula 1. For instance, Stoessel formula (1) is the same as instant C-6 (of instant claim 7) of instant formula 1 when Y is selected as single bond and each of the X on the same system are C and each of the X on the six-membered ring are N, R1 is selected as aromatic phenyl, and a R is selected as aromatic phenyl and the other R as heteroaromatic dibenzofuran (par. 25):
PNG
media_image8.png
142
106
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Instant C-6).
R1 may be heteroaryl per instant claim 15 (see par. 8-18, 25). While Stoessel teaches formula (1) material as host (i.e., matrix material) for a light emitting layer (see par. 70), Stoessel does not appear to teach an example compound the same as instant formula 1. Given the teachings of Stoessel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form a compound of the defined formula 1 taught by Stoessel as discussed above wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional formula (1) compound within the disclosure of Stoessel with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, substituent may or may not be present within the above discussed definition of formula 1 and meet the limitations of instant claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the above discussed definitions of formula meet at least the first shown formula of an instant formula 1 shown in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, the Stoessel formula 1 material is used in an emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device with additional materials (see abstract, par. 68, 70).
While Stoessel teaches formula 1 material as host (i.e., matrix material) for a light emitting layer and that matrix material may be a mixture (see par. 70), Stoessel does not appear to teach a specific second host (matrix) compound the same as instant formula 2. In analogous art, Kim et al. teaches a light emitting device may comprise a plurality of host material (see abstract) and that one of those hosts may include at least a material according to formula (1) (see par. 7-21), which encompasses compounds the same as instant formula 2 (of claims 1, 5, 6, and 8):
PNG
media_image5.png
212
302
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see Kim, par. 7).
More specifically, at least specific compound “C-1” of a Kim formula 1 (see par. 80) is identical to instant compound “H-1” of instant formula 2 shown in instant claim 8:
PNG
media_image6.png
132
120
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Kim compound “C-1” at par. 80).
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 for use in a light emitting device including a host material of formula 1 as taught by Stoessel et al. (per instant formula 1 or 4) and a host material of Kim et al. formula 1 (per instant formula 2) as discussed above. One would expect host derivatives taught by Kim to be similarly functional as host material in an emitting layer within a light emitting device structure as taught by Stoessel. “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). Furthermore, case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., host material in a light emitting layer of an emitting device) supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclar & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). One would expect to achieve an operational device having a light emitting layer including known host materials as taught by Stoessel and Kim within instant formulas 1 and 2, respectively, with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2011/0037027) in view of Min (US 2015/0001488).
Stoessel et al. teaches matrix materials for an emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract, par. 69). Per instant formula 1 of claim 1, the material may be according to formula (1) (see par. 8):
PNG
media_image7.png
172
326
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Formula 1 is defined such that X may be CR1 or N, Y may be single bond, and R1 may be groups such as aromatic ring system or heteroaromatic ring system (see par. 8-18, 25). The formula encompasses compounds the same as instant formula 1. For instance, Stoessel formula (1) is the same as instant C-6 (of instant claim 7) of instant formula 1 when Y is selected as single bond and each of the X on the same system are C and each of the X on the six-membered ring are N, R1 is selected as aromatic phenyl, and a R is selected as aromatic phenyl and the other R as heteroaromatic dibenzofuran (par. 25):
PNG
media_image8.png
142
106
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Instant C-6).
R1 may be heteroaryl per instant claim 15 (see par. 8-18, 25). While Stoessel teaches formula (1) material as host (i.e., matrix material) for a light emitting layer (see par. 70), Stoessel does not appear to teach an example compound the same as instant formula 1. Given the teachings of Stoessel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form a compound of the defined formula 1 taught by Stoessel as discussed above wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional formula (1) compound within the disclosure of Stoessel with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, substituent may or may not be present within the above discussed definition of formula 1 and meet the limitations of instant claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the above discussed definitions of formula meet at least the first shown formula of an instant formula 1 shown in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, the Stoessel formula 1 material is used in an emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device with additional materials (see abstract, par. 68, 70).
While Stoessel teaches formula 1 material as host (i.e., matrix material) for a light emitting layer and that matrix material may be a mixture (see par. 70), Stoessel does not appear to teach a specific second host (matrix) compound the same as instant formula 3. In analogous art, Min teaches a light emitting device may comprise a plurality of host material (see abstract) and that one of those hosts may include at least a material according to formula 4 (see par. 64), which encompasses compounds the same as recited instant formula 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
234
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see Min par. 64).
More specifically, at least specific compound “2-943” of a Min formula 4 (see par. 124, page 40) is identical to instant compound “H2-1” of instant formula 3 shown in instant claim 9:
PNG
media_image4.png
222
280
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Min compound “2-943” at par. 124).
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 for use in a light emitting device including a host material of formula 1 as taught by Stoessel et al. (per instant formula 1 or 4) and a host material of Min et al. formula 4 (per instant formula 3) as discussed above. One would expect host derivatives taught by Min to be similarly functional as host material in an emitting layer within a light emitting device structure as taught by Stoessel. “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). Furthermore, case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., host material in a light emitting layer of an emitting device) supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclar & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). One would expect to achieve an operational device having a light emitting layer including known host materials as taught by Stoessel and Min within instant formulas 1 and 3, respectively, with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2011/0037027).
Stoessel et al. teaches matrix materials for an emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract, par. 69). Per instant formula 4 of independent claim 11, the material may be according to formula (1) (see par. 8):
PNG
media_image7.png
172
326
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Formula 1 is defined such that X may be CR1 or N, Y may be single bond, and R1 may be groups such as aromatic ring system or heteroaromatic ring system (see par. 8-18). The formula encompasses compounds the same as instant formula 1. For instance, Stoessel formula (1) is the same as instant C-6 (of instant claim 12) of instant formula 1 when Y is selected as single bond and each of the X on the same system are C and each of the X on the six-membered ring are N, R1 is selected as aromatic phenyl, and each R is selected as aromatic phenyl or heteroaromatic dibenzofuran and where in formula 4 of claim 11, HAr is nitrogen-containing triazine:
PNG
media_image9.png
134
106
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Instant C-6).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the Stoessel formula 1 material is used in an emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device with additional materials (see abstract, par. 68, 70).
While Stoessel teaches formula (1) material as host (i.e., matrix material) for a light emitting layer (see par. 70), Stoessel does not appear to teach an example compound the same as instant formula 1. Given the teachings of Stoessel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form a compound of the defined formula 1 taught by Stoessel as discussed above wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional formula (1) compound within the disclosure of Stoessel with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0337361 A1).
Lee et al. teaches a combination of a first host represented by formula 1 and a second host represented by formula 2 (see par. 6-9 and19). Formula 2 is the following per instant formula 1 and 4 compounds (see par. 7) of instant claim 11:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Linking groups L21 to L23 may be single bond (see par. 9). At least one R21 to R23 is formula 2A (see par. 8):
PNG
media_image2.png
108
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The other two of the R21 to R23 groups may be selected as aryl or heteroaryl among other groups (see par. 8). A heteroaryl may include carbazole further substituted with aryl phenyl (see par. 43-44. A R24 group may be at least C6 aryl (e.g., phenyl) or heteroaryl (see par. 9, 41-44). Each X201 to X203 may be nitrogen per a triazine ring (see par. 8). A compound with the substituted carbazole is the same as instant C-16, C-17, C-18, or C-19. While a Formula 2 where the linking one of a L21 to L23 is single bond and the corresponding bonded R21 to R23 group is selected as the Formula 2A group and at least one is selected as a heteroaryl group such as substituted carbazole does not appear to be exemplified, the definition of formula 2 clearly provides for a compound with the defined group(s).
While Lee teaches formula (2) material as host (i.e., matrix material) for a light emitting layer (see par. 70), Lee does not appear to teach an example compound the same as instant formula 1. Given the teachings of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to form a compound of the defined formula 2 taught by Lee as discussed above wherein the resultant compound would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve a functional formula (1) compound within the disclosure of Lee with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the claims have been narrowed in scope, the office submits the prior art continues to render obvious the compounds, compositions, and devices as claimed. On page 64 of the remarks, applicant argues embodiments of Lee triazine compounds. The office notes that a teaching is not limited to only example embodiments. The defined Lee formula 2 encompasses defined groups the same as claimed. No unexpected results with respect to specifically claimed compounds were discussed. Similarly, the office submits the narrowing of recited compounds has not overcome rejections over Stossel and no unexpected results were discussed. Note that where a claimed improvement of a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Accordingly, applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
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
