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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
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 03/30/2026 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 cancellation of claims 5 and 8 obviates the rejections of claims 5 and 8 set forth in the last Office Action.
The approved Terminal Disclaimer of 03/30/2026 obviates the provisional rejection of claim 1 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6 of copending Application No. 17/831,568 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘568) set forth in the last Office Action.
The new drawings filed on 03/30/2026 overcomes the objection of drawings set forth in the last Office Action. The objection is withdrawn. It is noted that the specification objection is maintained. See details below.
The amendment of claim 1 overcome the objection of claim 1 set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1 and 7 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1, 5, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2024/0389455 A1, hereafter Seo), and
the rejections of claims 1, 5, 7-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al. (US 2024/0206323 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 8 of the reply filed 03/30/2026 regarding objection of specification set forth in the Office Action of 06/30/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the objection should be withdrawn.
It appears that the instant specification reciting “Figure 1” (page 5 and 71) has not been amended. The “Figure 1” needs to be replaced by appropriate terminology such as “The Figure” or “The figure”.
Applicant’s arguments see page 9-14 of the reply filed 03/30/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo set forth in the Office Action of 06/30/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcome the rejections.
The cited rejections refer to the Compound 1-156 of Seo as the second host and the Modified compound 2-341 of Seo as the first host (see sections 49 and 60 of the last Office Action). However, the Modified compound 2-341 of Seo does not read on Formula 1-1-1 of the amended claim 1 and does not have the same structure as any of the embodiments claimed in the amended claim 7. Similarly the Compound 1-156 of Seo does not read on the limitations of the second host of the amended claims 1 and 7. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 14-18 of the reply filed 03/30/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui set forth in the Office Action of 06/30/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcome the rejections.
The cited rejections refer to the Compound B-58 of Lui as the second host and the Modified compound A-25 of Lui as the first host (see sections 65 and 75 of the last Office Action). However, the Modified compound A-25 of Lui does not read on Formula 1-1-1 of the amended claim 1 and does not have the same structure as any of the embodiments claimed in the amended claim 7. Similarly the Compound B-58 of Seo does not read on the limitations of the second host of the amended claims 1 and 7. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
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 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
624
769
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.
The Compound p86-6 of Lee 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 mores 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 Modified organic electroluminescent device of Lee by substituting the hydrogen atoms of the Compound p86-6 Lee and the Compound p58-4 of Lee with deuterium atoms, as taught by Lee 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 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 Organic electroluminescent device of Lee as modified by Li comprising an anode, a light emitting layer containing Deuterated Compound p86-6 of Lee as a first host and 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_image2.png
657
674
media_image2.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_image3.png
200
123
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The Compound D-123 of Jang has similar carbon backbone structure as Applicant’s compound H2-62. The only difference is that the Compound D-123 of Jang has a para-connected biphenyl group at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 of Jang (see the part pointed by an arrow in the figure above) while Applicant’s Compound H2-62 has meta-connection.
However, Jang does teach that in the compound of Jang represented by Formula 2, the linker group L4 can be substituted to any substitutable position ([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 D-123 of Jang by substituting the connection positions of the phenylene group at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 from para to meta, 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).
Furthermore, the Compound D-123 of Jang is a position isomer with a similar compound in which the phenylene linker at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 is connected via the meta positions of the phenylene.
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 D-123 of Jang shown above such that the phenylene linker at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 is connected from the meta position of the phenylene linker. A compound in which the phenylene linker at the position corresponding to L4 of Formula 2 is connected from the meta position of the phenylene linker would represent a position isomer of the Compound D-123 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 D-123 of Jang as shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
542
326
media_image4.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 H2-62
PNG
media_image5.png
209
156
media_image5.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 H2-62) as the second host.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights