DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0112952) in view of Lecloux et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0140544).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 18: Adamovich et al. teaches a premix-evaporation source of two organic compounds wherein the two compounds are host compounds and have evaporation temperatures in the claimed range of 100-400 °C (abstract, [0032]-[0033], [0166], [0169]-[0170], and Tables 1-2). Adamovich et al. teaches that the first compound should have an evaporation temperature within 10 °C of the second compound (absolute value of T1-T2 is less than 20 °C) ([0168]). Adamovich et al. teaches a specific example wherein T1 is 284 °C and T2 is 292 °C (Tables 1-3, Example 1). Adamovich et al. teaches compounds comprising a triazine such as H211 (Pg. 11). Adamovich et al. teaches compounds comprising a carbazole moiety having exactly three fused rings such as H213 (Pg. 11).
Adamovich et al. does not teach a specific embodiment comprising H211 and H213. However, at the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include both such compounds in the composition of Adamovich et al. and would have been motivated to do so because they are both disclosed by Adamovich et al. as being suitable for the invention.
Adamovich et al. does not teach wherein one or both of the compounds contains at least one less abundant stable isotope atom. However, Lecloux et al. teaches deuterated (less abundant stable isotope atom) host compounds ([0003], [0098], [0156]-[0157]). Adamovich et al. and Lecloux et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely host materials for organic light emitting devices. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the deuterated substitutions as disclosed by Lecloux et al. in one or both the compounds of Adamovich et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Lecloux et al. teaches that the deuterated compounds provide increased lifetime to electronic devices and have greater air tolerance ([0066]).
The Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by the reference, namely the concentrations C1 vs C2. However, the combined references render obvious all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, process steps, and process conditions. Furthermore, there is nothing in Applicant’s original specification indicate that the property is the result of anything other than the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would implicitly be achieved by the composition as claimed and rendered obvious. If it is the Applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support Applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, process steps, and process conditions.
Regarding Claim 5: As vapor pressure is directly related to evaporation, the compounds having substantially the same evaporation temperature will have substantially the same vapor pressure.
Regarding Claim 9: The compounds of Adamovich et al. contain alkyl groups (non-conjugated carbon atoms) that can contain a deuterium substitution as taught by Lecloux et al.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11: Adamovich et al. teaches compounds comprising a carbazole group such as H213 (Pg. 11).
Regarding Claims 12 and 14: Adamovich et al. teaches compounds comprising a dibenzothiophene such as H1 and H205 (Pgs. 7 and 10).
Regarding Claim 15: Adamovich et al. does not disclose the presence of any impurities and discloses only the particular compounds as discussed above. Furthermore, the mere purity of a product does not render the product nonobvious ([2144.04]).
Regarding Claim 16: Adamovich et al. does not teach an embodiment comprising a third compound. However, At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine equivalent compounds of Adamovich et al. to include a third compound. and would have been motivated to do so because each of the compounds individually are known to be effective as host material compounds (see MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claim 17: Adamovich et al. teaches the composition present as a solution (liquid) ([0025]).
Regarding Claims 19-20: Adamovich et al. teaches a method of making an organic light emitting device utilizing the composition wherein the device comprises a first and second electrodes and a first organic layer disposed between the electrodes, wherein the method comprises providing a substrate having a first electrode disposed thereon, depositing the organic composition over the first electrode, and depositing the second electrode over the first organic layer ([0106]). Adamovich et al. teaches that the method utilizes high vacuum thermal evaporation and are deposited at 2-3 Å/s at 10-7-10-8 torr at a distance of 50 cm ([0033], [0169], and [0229]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0112952) in view of Lecloux et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0140544) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nago et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0070204).
Adamovich et al. in view of Lecloux et al. render obvious the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Adamovich et al. teaches compounds comprising a triazine such as H211 (Pg. 11).
Adamovich et al. does not teach a compound comprising a 3,3’-bicarbozole. However, Nago et al. teaches host compounds comprising 3,3’-bicarbazole groups ([0079] and Pg. 6, compound 6). Adamovich et al. and Nago et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely organic light emitting device host materials. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include compounds of Nago et al. in the composition of Adamovich et al. and would have been motivated to do so because Nago et al. teaches such compounds have both high luminance efficiency and durability (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results are unpersuasive as the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention (MPEP 716.02(d)). The instant claims allow for any compounds with a non-fused carbazole moiety and any compound comprising a triazine within the claimed evaporation temperatures, any concentrations of the compounds, any degree of isotope substitution, and any stable isotope atom including D, C13, and N15. It is not clear that the results would similarly be seen with any stable isotope atom with any degree of substitution, any concentration of compounds, and any compound with a non-fused carbazole moiety and any compound comprising a triazine within the claimed evaporation temperatures.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 November 20, 2025