DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 11/19/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/21/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 18 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/21/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The objection to Claims 16, 17, and 19-23 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/21/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 10-1857703) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/21/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 16, 17, 19-22, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 10-1857703) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/21/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-1857703) as applied above and in further view of Xia et al. (US 2010/0244004 A1).
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 17, 19-23, and 31-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites “Ar1” (page 6), which must be replaced by “Ar1” for consistency with formula (1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim fails to conclude with a period. Furthermore, the claim recites compounds in the second row (on page 16) which do not have numerical labels.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 17, 19-23, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites “at least one compound of the formula (2b-1), (2b-2), (2b-3), (2b-4), (2b-5), or (2b-6) as host material 2” (page 2). However, the exact scope of host material 2 is indefinite as the structures of formulae (2b-5) and (2b-6) are nowhere found.
Corrections are required.
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.
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.
Claims 16, 17, 19-22, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-1857703) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2016/0260908 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-1857703 (herein referred to as “Lee et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Lee et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (OLED) comprising a light-emitting layer comprising host material; the host material comprises a mixture of a compound of Formula 1 and additional material such as a heterocyclic compound, including a carbazole derivative ([0196], [0206]-[0208], [0240]). The light-emitting layer is doped with phosphorescent dopant material ([0200]); the light-emitting layer is formed via methods such as vacuum deposition and solution method (such as spin coating) (which inherently involves dissolution of mixture into solvent) ([0224]). The light-emitting layer comprises dopant material such as iridium complexes ([0242]) such as the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 99 of Lee et al.). Lee et al. discloses the following embodiment for the compound of Formula 1 (Example 39, [0608]):
PNG
media_image2.png
194
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(host material 1) such that a = b = 0, Y = O, Ar1 = aryl group having 6 aromatic ring atoms (phenyl), and L = Applicant’s divalent linker L-2 of Applicant’s formula (1). The organic EL device comprises the following sequence of layers: anode, hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, electron-transporting layer, and cathode ([0624]; Fig. 2 of Lee et al.). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose a host material 2 as recited in Claim 1.
Zeng et al. discloses the following compound as useful host materials which can improve the performance of an organic EL device (Abstract):
PNG
media_image3.png
202
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 14) (host material 2) such that d = f = 0 and M = aromatic ring system having 12 aromatic ring atoms (1,3-biphenyl) of Applicant’s formula (2b-1). It would have been obvious to incorporate Compound B2 as disclosed by Zeng et al. into the light-emitting layer (as part of the host material mixture) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Lee et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Zeng et al., which discloses that the use of its inventive compounds as host materials can improve device performance.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-1857703) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2016/0260908 A1) as applied above and in further view of Xia et al. (US 2010/0244004 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-1857703 (herein referred to as “Lee et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Lee et al. in view of Zeng et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device of Claim 22 as shown above. Lee et al. discloses that the light-emitting layer comprises (light-emitting) dopant material such as iridium complexes (in combination with the host material) ([0242]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the emitter of Applicant’s formula (3).
Xia et al. discloses the following phosphorescent emissive complex for use as emitting dopants in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device (Abstract; [0016]):
PNG
media_image4.png
258
314
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 5) such that X = CR (with R = hydrogen), R = hydrogen, n = 1, and m = 2 of Applicant’s formula (3). Xia et al. discloses that the use of its inventive compounds results in a device with improved efficiency and long lifetime ([0071]). It would have been obvious to utilize Compound 1 as disclosed by Xia et al. as the dopant material in the composition as disclosed by Lee et al. in view of Zeng et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Xia et al. which is directed the known and viable dopant material, the use of which results in a device with improved efficiency and long lifetime.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 18-20 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections as set forth above.
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 JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786