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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9 and 11 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 04/15/2026. Claims 1, 4, and 9-12 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1, 4, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 2017/0342057 A1) in view of Dyatkin (US 2016/0329502 A1 is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Dyatkin and Kwong (US 2003/0072964 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 04/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-15 of the reply dated 04/15/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 9-12 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended which require a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1-2 and a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2-2-2.
Examiner's response –As discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Adamovich (US 2014/0374728 A1) teaches compound H1-1, which is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1-2. Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “A5 to 10” rather than “A5 to A10”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2014/0374728 A1) in view of Dyatkin (US 2016/0329502 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 9-11, Adamovich teaches an improved OLED including a cathode, an anode, and an emissive layer therebetween, wherein the emissive layer includes a first host compound having hole-transport property, a second host compound, and a phosphorescent emitter material, and wherein the first host compound is represented by the general formula (I) (abstract; ¶ [0011]). Examples of the first host compound represented by general formula (I) include Compound H1-1 (pg. 5).
Compound H1-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1-2.
H1-1:
PNG
media_image1.png
323
299
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1-1-2:
PNG
media_image2.png
272
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound H1-1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1-2 wherein:
Ar1, Ar2, and Ar5 are each an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl) (claim 4);
A5 to A10 are each hydrogen; and
a7 and a10 are each 4 and a5, a6, a8, and a9 are each 3.
Additionally, compound H1-1 reads on the compound of claim 9.
While Adamovich taches the second host compound is more electron-transporting compared to the compound represented by general formula (1), Adamovich fails to teach the second host compound is a compound of the claimed formula 2-2-2 (¶ [0008]).
Dyatkin teaches an organic compound having the structure of Formula I, wherein the compound is used as a host material or an electron transporting material and provides improves OLED performance (abstract; ¶ [0003] and [0017]). Examples of compounds having the structure of Formula I include Compound 4 (pg. 12).
Given that Dyatkin’s compound may be used as an electron transporting material and compound H1-1 has hole-transport property, Dyatkin’s compound is considered more electron-transporting than Adamovich’s compound H1-1 (see Adamovich, abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound represented by Dyatkin’s Formula I as the second host compound in Adamovich’s device, based on the teaching of Dyatkin. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improved device performance, as taught by Dyatkin.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Compound 4 as the second host compound, because it would have been choosing from a list of compounds taught by Dyatkin suitable for use as a host in an OLED, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second host compound in the light-emitting layer of the device of Adamovich and possessing the benefits taught by Dyatkin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the compounds taught by Dyatkin and having the benefits taught by Dyatkin in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Dyatkin’s Compound 4 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2-2-2.
Compound 4:
PNG
media_image3.png
245
305
media_image3.png
Greyscale
2-2-2:
PNG
media_image4.png
275
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 4 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2-2-2 wherein:
Ar3, Ar4, Ar6, and Ar7 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of phenyl;
Each of X1 to X3 is N;
R1 to R8 are each hydrogen;
R9 is hydrogen; and
r9 is an integer of 3.
Additionally, Compound 4 reads on the compound of claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2014/0374728 A1) in view of Dyatkin (US 2016/0329502 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwong (US 2003/0072964 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Adamovich in view of Dyatkin teach the organic electroluminescent device including compound H1-1 and Compound 4 as hosts and a phosphorescent dopant, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Adamovich in view of Dyatkin fail to specifically teach a device comprising compound H1-1 and Compound 4 as hosts in combination with a claimed phosphorescent dopant. However, Adamovich does teach any suitable phosphorescent dopant may be used in the emissive layer (¶ [0042]).
Kwong teaches phosphorescent organometallic complexes comprising phenylquinolinato ligands for use as emitters in organic light emitting devices (abstract; ¶ [0176]). OLEDs comprising such complexes obtain improved efficiency and longer lifetime (abstract; ¶ [0006]). The organometallic complexes are represented by Formula I, II, or III and examples thereof include compound 13 (¶ [0007] and [0165]).
compound 13:
PNG
media_image5.png
139
230
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound of Kwong’s Formula I, II, or III as a phosphorescent dopant in the emissive layer of the device of Adamovich in view of Dyatkin, based on the teaching of Kwong. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved efficiency and longer lifetime, as taught by Kwong.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound 13, because it would have been choosing from a list of compounds represented by Formula I, II, or III taught by Kwong, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the light-emitting layer of the device of Adamovich in view of Dyatkin and Kwong and possessing the benefits taught by Kwong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Kwong’s Formula I, II, or III having the benefits taught by Kwong in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Kwong’s compound 13 reads on the claimed Dp-5.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights