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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/30/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 17/831,568 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 08/06/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 2-6, 8-9 and 11-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are pending.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
The amendment of specification has overcome the objection of specification set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 8 of the reply filed 08/06/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0301183 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereafter Li) set forth in the Office Action of 05/06/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Lee in view of Li fails to teach or suggest the first host material now recited in amended claim 1.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
First of all, the amendment has a 112(a) new matter issue.
Applicant claims “A first host material(s) comprising the compound represented by the following Formula 1-1-1, … R4 represents a dibenzofuranyl substituted with (C6-C18)aryl(s), or a dibenzothiophenyl substituted a (C6-C18)aryl(s), wherein all hydrogens are replaced with deuterium; …”
However, it appears that the claimed substituent groups at R4 are not supported by the instant specification. There is no embodiment including all the features of Formula 1-1-1 of the amended claim 1 (see embodiments on page 18-34 of the specification).
It appears the closest descriptions in the instant specification provides some details of a first host material which is represented by Formula 1 (page 2), wherein HAr can be a substituted or unsubstituted triazinyl; the substituent of the substituted triazinyl can be a dibenzofuranyl unsubstituted or substituted with at least one deuterium and a phenyl(s) or a dibenzothiophenyl unsubstituted or substituted with at least one deuterium (pages 12-13). However, there is no description to support the feature “a dibenzofuranyl substituted with (C6-C18)aryl(s), or a dibenzothiophenyl substituted a (C6-C18)aryl(s), wherein all hydrogens are replaced with deuterium”.
Thus, the instant specification does not provide sufficient support for the claimed specificity regarding the R4 of Formula 1-1-1.
Secondly, even if the amended claims were supported by the specification, the first host compound is still obvious over the reference by Lee in view of Han (US 2021/0083198) and Li.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Formula 2 and a compound of Formula 3 as host materials ([0008]-[0032] and [0053]). Lee exemplifies a compound as the Formula 3 ([0176], the 6th compound on page 86, hereafter Compound p86-6).
In the Compound p86-6 of Lee, the dibenzofuran group at the position corresponding to Ar22 is not substituted (i.e. see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Lee does teach that the heteroaryl group at the position corresponding to Ar22 can be further substituted by an aryl group ([0038]) and exemplifies a phenyl group as the aryl group ([0048]; and see examples in [0176] including at least 5th compounds on page 342).
Han discloses a triazine compound (Formula 1 in [0006]-[0015]) used as the host material with a bicarbazole compound in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device ([0104], [0107]).
PNG
media_image2.png
392
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The triazine compound of Formula 1 of Han necessarily comprises aryl or heteroaryl groups each substituted to the dibenzo-five-membered ring ([0013]-[0015]). Han exemplifies Compound p38-4 ([0093]), wherein phenyl groups are substituted to dibenzofuranyl groups (i.e. see the parts enclosed by dashed circles in the figure above).
Han teaches that the compound of Formula 1 of Han provides enhanced efficiency, lowered driving voltage, or enhanced lifetime properties ([0018]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p86-6 Lee by substituting a phenyl group to the dibenzofuranyl group at the position corresponding to Ar22 of Formula 3 of Lee, as taught by Lee and Han.
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Han.
PNG
media_image3.png
336
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
New grounds of rejections are applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejections, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 8 of the reply filed 08/06/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2020/0161560 A1, hereafter Jang) in view of Liu et al. (“Isotope Effect of Host Material on Device Stability of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes” Small Sci. 2021, vol. 1, page 2000057-1 to -6, hereafter Liu ‘2021) set forth in the Office Action of 05/06/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Compound H-62 has been deleted in claim 7; thus, the claim is allowable.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The cited rejections refer to Modified compound D-123 of Jang (see section 63 of the last Office Action), which had identical structure as H2-62 of the previous claim 7. Claim 7 has been amended to delete the compound H2-62. However, Jang is still applicable to reject the claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
335
674
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jang discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer containing a first host represented by Formula 1 and a second host represented by Formula 2 ([0010]-[0029]). Hang exemplifies Compound D-123 as the second host ([0124]).
The Compound D-123 of Jang has similar carbon backbone structure as Applicant’s compound H2-12. The only difference is that the phenylene group at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 of Jang (see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be a single bond.
However, Jang does teach that in the compound of Jang represented by Formula 2, the linker group L4 can be a single bond ([0021]). Jang exemplifies a single bond at the position corresponding to L4 (see examples in [0124] including at least D-128).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound D-123 of Jang by substituting the phenylene group at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 with a single bond, as taught by Jang.
The modification provides Modified compound D-123 of Jang as shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
287
551
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The carbazole groups of the Modified compound D-123 of Jang are not substituted by deuterium; however, Jang does teach that the substituent of the carbazole groups such as R5 to R8 can be deuterium ([0022]).
Liu ‘2021 teaches a carbazole based host compound used for an organic electroluminescent device (Abstract, PYD2Cz-d16 in Fig. 1a). Liu ‘2021 teaches that the substitution of hydrogen to deuterium provide extended lifetime due to the heavier deuterium atoms which makes slower kinetic rate for unwanted chemical reactions (page 2, column 1, paragraph 1, and Conclusion).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound D-123 of Jang by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R5 to R8 of Formula 2 of Jang with deuterium, as taught by Jang and Liu ‘2021.
The modification provides Compound of Jang as modified by Liu ‘2021 which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound H2-12
PNG
media_image6.png
167
119
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
The modification also provides Organic electroluminescent device of Jang as modified by Liu ‘2021 comprising Modified Compound B-6 of Jang (same as Applicant’s Compound H1-278) as a first host and Compound of Jang as modified by Liu ‘2021 (same as Applicant’s Compound H2-12) as the second host.
New grounds of rejection have been applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims “A first host material(s) comprising the compound represented by the following Formula 1-1-1, … R4 represents a dibenzofuranyl substituted with (C6-C18)aryl(s), or a dibenzothiophenyl substituted a (C6-C18)aryl(s), wherein all hydrogens are replaced with deuterium; …”
However, it appears that the claimed substituent groups at R4 are not supported by the instant specification. There is no embodiment including all the features of Formula 1-1-1 of the amended claim 1 (see embodiments on page 18-34 of the specification).
It appears the closest descriptions in the instant specification provides some details of a first host material which is represented by Formula 1 (page 2), wherein HAr can be a substituted or unsubstituted triazinyl; the substituent of the substituted triazinyl can be a dibenzofuranyl unsubstituted or substituted with at least one deuterium and a phenyl(s) or a dibenzothiophenyl unsubstituted or substituted with at least one deuterium (pages 12-13). However, there is no description to support the feature “a dibenzofuranyl substituted with (C6-C18)aryl(s), or a dibenzothiophenyl substituted a (C6-C18)aryl(s), wherein all hydrogens are replaced with deuterium”.
Thus, the instant specification does not provide sufficient support for the claimed specificity regarding the R4 of Formula 1-1-1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected due to the dependency from the rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0301183 A1, hereafter Lee) in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0083198 A1, hereafter Han) and Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1, hereafter Li).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Lee discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Formula 2 and a compound of Formula 3 as host materials ([0008]-[0032] and [0053]).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee exemplifies a compound as the Formula 2 ([0114], the 4th compound on page 58, hereafter Compound p58-4) and a compound as the Formula 3 ([0176], the 6th compound on page 86, hereafter Compound p86-6).
Lee does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Compound p86-6 and Compound p58-4; however, Lee does teach that the compound of Formula 2 and the compound of Formula 3 are used as the hosts of an organic electroluminescent device ([0053]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Lee by incorporating Compounds p86-6 and p58-4 as the host materials of the light emitting layer of the device, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of compounds of Formula 2 and Formula 3 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device of Lee comprising an anode, a light emitting layer containing Compound p86-6 of Lee as a first host and Compound p58-4 of Lee as a second host, and a cathode.
In the Compound p86-6 of Lee, the dibenzofuran group at the position corresponding to Ar22 is not substituted (i.e. see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above); however, Lee does teach that the heteroaryl group at the position corresponding to Ar22 can be further substituted by an aryl group ([0038]) and exemplifies a phenyl group as the aryl group ([0048]; and see examples in [0176] including at least 5th compounds on page 342).
Han discloses a triazine compound (Formula 1 in [0006]-[0015]) used as the host material with a bicarbazole compound in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device ([0104], [0107]).
PNG
media_image2.png
392
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The triazine compound of Formula 1 of Han necessarily comprises aryl or heteroaryl groups each substituted to the dibenzo-five-membered ring ([0013]-[0015]). Han exemplifies Compound p38-4 ([0093]), wherein phenyl groups are substituted to dibenzofuranyl groups (i.e. see the parts enclosed by dashed circles in the figure above).
Han teaches that the compound of Formula 1 of Han provides enhanced efficiency, lowered driving voltage, or enhanced lifetime properties ([0018]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p86-6 Lee by substituting a phenyl group to the dibenzofuranyl group at the position corresponding to Ar22 of Formula 3 of Lee, as taught by Lee and Han.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide enhanced efficiency, lowered driving voltage, or enhanced lifetime properties, based on the teaching of Han.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents of the dibenzofuranyl group at the position corresponding to Ar22 of Formula 3 of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Han.
PNG
media_image3.png
336
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Organic electroluminescent device of Lee as modified by Han comprising an anode, a light emitting layer containing Compound of Lee as modified by Han as a first host and Compound p58-4 of Lee as a second host, and a cathode.
The Compound of Lee as modified by Han is not deuterated; however, Lee does teach that Ar21 to Ar23 can be a substituted aryl or a substituted heteroaryl ([0029]); R21 can be deuterium ([0030]); and the substituent of the substituted can be deuterium ([0038]). Lee further teaches that the compounds of Lee can be 100% deuterated ([0052]).
The Compound p58-4 of Lee is not deuterated; however, Lee does teach that Ar11 and Ar12 can be a substituted aryl ([0022]); R11 and R12 can be deuterium ([0023]); and the substituent of the substituted can be deuterium ([0038]). Lee further teaches that the compounds of Lee can be 100% deuterated ([0052]).
Li teaches C-D bond is stronger, more stable, and react more slowly than C-H bond such that a deuterated organic system has better thermal stability and longer lifetime in optoelectronic devices ([0009]-[0010]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Lee by substituting the hydrogen atoms of the Compound of Lee as modified by Han and the Compound p58-4 of Lee with deuterium atoms, as taught by Lee, Han, and Li.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide better thermal stability and longer lifetime based on the teaching of Li.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of hydrogen with deuterium in Formulas 2 and 3 of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides fully deuterated Compound of Lee as modified by Han and fully deuterated Compound p58-4 of Lee.
The modification also provides Organic electroluminescent device of Lee as modified by Han and Li comprising an anode, a light emitting layer containing a deuterated Compound of Lee as modified by Han as a first host and a deuterated Compound p58-4 of Lee as a second host, and a cathode, wherein the deuterated means that all the hydrogen atoms in each compound are replaced by deuterium (i.e. 100% deuteration).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2020/0161560 A1, hereafter Jang) in view of Liu et al. (“Isotope Effect of Host Material on Device Stability of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes” Small Sci. 2021, vol. 1, page 2000057-1 to -6, hereafter Liu ‘2021).
Regarding claim 7, Jang discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer containing a first host represented by Formula 1 and a second host represented by Formula 2 ([0010]-[0029]). Hang exemplifies Compound B-6 as the first host ([0117]) and Compound D-123 as the second host ([0124]).
PNG
media_image4.png
335
674
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jang does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Compound B-6 and Compound D-123; however, Jang does teach that the compound of Formula 1 can be used as the first host and the compound of Formula 2 can be used as the second host ([0010]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device by incorporating the Compound B-6 of Jang as the first host and the Compound D-123 as the second host in an organic electroluminescent device, as taught by Jang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the first and second hosts would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device comprising Compound B-6 of Jang as a first host and Compound D-123 of Jang as the second host.
The Compound B-6 of Jang has similar structure as Applicant’s compound H1-278. The only difference is that the Compound B-6 of Jang has a terminal dibenzofuranyl group substituted at position 3 and a phenylene linker group at the position corresponding to L2 of Formula 1 of Jang substituted at position m (see the annotations “3” and “m” in the figure above) while Applicant’s compound H1-278 requires the terminal dibenzofuranyl group substituted at position 4 and the phenylene linker group substituted at position p.
However, Jang does teach that in the compound of Jang represented by Formula 1, the linker group L2 can be substituted to any substitutable position of the benzene ring of the dibenzofuran group and connected to any substitutable position of the linker group L2 ([0010]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound B-6 of Jang by substituting the substitution position of the dibenzofuran group from position 3 to position 4 and the substitution position of the phenylene linker group from position m to position p, as taught by Jang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substitution positions at the dibenzofuran group and the phenylene linker group would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the Compound B-6 of Jang is a position isomer with similar compounds in which the phenylene linker is substituted to the position 4 of the dibenzofuran group and connected from the para position of the phenylene linker.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Compound B-6 of Jang shown above such that the phenylene linker is substituted to the position 4 of the dibenzofuran group and connected from the para position of the phenylene linker. A compound in which the phenylene linker is substituted to the position 4 of the dibenzofuran group and connected from the para position of the phenylene linker would represent a position isomer of the Compound B-6 of Jang. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
The modification provides Modified Compound B-6 of Jang which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound H1-278,
PNG
media_image7.png
200
123
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
The Compound D-123 of Jang has similar carbon backbone structure as Applicant’s compound H2-12. The only difference is that the phenylene group at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 of Jang (see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above) is required to be a single bond.
However, Jang does teach that in the compound of Jang represented by Formula 2, the linker group L4 can be a single bond ([0021]). Jang exemplifies a single bond at the position corresponding to L4 (see examples in [0124] including at least D-128).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound D-123 of Jang by substituting the phenylene group at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 with a single bond, as taught by Jang.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified compound D-123 of Jang as shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
287
551
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The carbazole groups of the Modified compound D-123 of Jang are not substituted by deuterium; however, Jang does teach that the substituent of the carbazole groups such as R5 to R8 can be deuterium ([0022]).
Liu ‘2021 teaches a carbazole based host compound used for an organic electroluminescent device (Abstract, PYD2Cz-d16 in Fig. 1a). Liu ‘2021 teaches that the substitution of hydrogen to deuterium provide extended lifetime due to the heavier deuterium atoms which makes slower kinetic rate for unwanted chemical reactions (page 2, column 1, paragraph 1, and Conclusion).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound D-123 of Jang by substituting the hydrogen atoms at the positions corresponding to R5 to R8 of Formula 2 of Jang with deuterium, as taught by Jang and Liu ‘2021.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide extended lifetime due to the heavier deuterium atoms which makes slower kinetic rate for unwanted chemical reactions, based on the teaching of Liu ‘2021.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of hydrogen to deuterium at the positions corresponding to R5 to R8 of Formula 2 of Jang would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Jang as modified by Liu ‘2021 which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound H2-12
PNG
media_image6.png
167
119
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
The modification also provides Organic electroluminescent device of Jang as modified by Liu ‘2021 comprising Modified Compound B-6 of Jang (same as Applicant’s Compound H1-278) as a first host and Compound of Jang as modified by Liu ‘2021 (same as Applicant’s Compound H2-12) as the second host.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
