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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated January 20, 2026 is entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 4 is a cancelled claim. Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are pending.
The rejection over claims 11-14 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 (WO 2020/027506 A1) is withdrawn. The claims are rejected over Stoessel in this office action.
The rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoessel et al. (US 2011/0037027) in view of Min (US 2015/0001488) is withdrawn. The claims are rejected over Stoessel in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2018/0337361 A1).
Lee et al. discloses compound 102 (page 7) per instant formula 1 and compound 5 (page 6) per instant formula 3 for an organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image1.png
162
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
222
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Example device 3 comprises an emission layer comprising a combination of compound 5 and compound 102 (see Table 2 at bottom of page 50) per instant claims 1 and 10. Compound 102 anticipates instant formula 1 (of claim 1) as a first host and compound 5 anticipates instant formula 3 second host. The compounds are a mixture per the plurality combination of instant claim 1 (see Example device 3 in Table 2, page 50). The substituent groups of compounds 102 and 5 meet the requirements of claim 2. The compound 102 meets the requirements of the first listed formula of claim 3.
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, and 9-14 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 claims 1 and 11:
PNG
media_image3.png
130
328
media_image3.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_image4.png
108
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
A R24 group may be at least C6 aryl (e.g., phenyl) (see par. 9). Each X201 to X203 may be nitrogen per a triazine ring (see par. 8). 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 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, 7, and 12 (such as at least compound C-1) are within the definition of Formula 2. Also, Formula 1 compounds as defined encompass instant formula 3 compounds of instant claims 1 and 9. Regarding claims 10, 13, and 14, devices are formed with the combination of first and second compounds (see abstract and par. 19-61).
While Lee et al. teaches compounds of formula 1 and formula 2 (per instant formulas 1, 4, and 3, respectively), Lee et al. does not appear to exemplify all possible compounds the same as instant claims 1-3, 7, and 9-14. 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 formed compounds as defined and as discussed above wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve functional compounds for host material for a device structure within the disclosure of Lee et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 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_image5.png
172
326
media_image5.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-1 (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 each R is selected as aromatic phenyl and where in formula 4 of claim 11, HAr is nitrogen-containing triazine.
PNG
media_image6.png
124
96
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Instant C-1).
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_image7.png
212
302
media_image7.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_image8.png
132
120
media_image8.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, and 10 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_image5.png
172
326
media_image5.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-1 (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 each R is selected as aromatic phenyl and where in formula 4 of claim 11, HAr is nitrogen-containing triazine.
PNG
media_image6.png
124
96
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Instant C-1).
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_image9.png
234
356
media_image9.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_image10.png
222
280
media_image10.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_image5.png
172
326
media_image5.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-1 (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 and where in formula 4 of claim 11, HAr is nitrogen-containing triazine.
PNG
media_image6.png
124
96
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Instant C-1).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection over Stoessel in view of Kim, the office maintains a formula 1 compound the same as at least recited instant compound “C-1” is rendered obvious by Stoessel formula 1 definitions. The compounds of Stoessel are not limited to only example/preferred compounds of par. [0049], but the reference is relevant for all it teaches. The office disagrees there is a clear teaching away from asymmetric compounds of formula 1.
Regarding the rejection over Stoessel in view of Min, the office maintains a formula 1 compound the same as at least recited instant compound “C-1” is rendered obvious by Stoessel formula 1. The compounds of Stoessel are not limited to only compounds of par. [0049], but the reference is relevant for all it teaches. There is no clear teaching away from asymmetric compounds.
Applicant has not provided experimental evidence that a specific composition of the claimed first and second host compounds provides unexpectedly improved results or that formula 4 compounds of claim 11 provide unexpectedly improved results. The office submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine two materials useful for the same purpose absent evidence otherwise and it would have been obvious to form formula 1 compounds as defined by Stoessel.
While Stoessel may teach additional compounds outside the now recited formula 1 or 4, inclusion of these further compounds within the reference does not negate the fact that compounds the same as claimed are also taught within Stoessel.
Conclusion
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