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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 10-11 are amended, and claims 5-8 are cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 12/31/2025. Claims 1, 4, and 9-12 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 5-8 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claims 5-8 are cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 12/31/2025.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2017/0117488 A1) in view of Yokoyama (US 2013/0126856 A1) and Zink (US 2019/0019960 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/31/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Yokoyama, Zink, and Kwong (US 2003/0072964 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/31/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-14 of the reply dated 12/31/2025 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 or 1-1-3 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 Shim (US 2017/0342057 A1) teaches compound F1 (which is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1-3) and the newly cited reference Dyatkin (US 2016/0329502 A1) teaches Compound 4 (which is a compound of the claimed Chemical Formula 2-2-2). Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
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 Shim (US 2017/0342057 A1) in view of Dyatkin (US 2016/0329502 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 9-11, Shim teaches an organic electroluminescent device having high efficiency and long lifespan by comprising a light-emitting layer between an anode and a cathode; wherein the light-emitting layer includes a host and a phosphorescent dopant; the host comprises plural compounds; and at least a first host compound of the plural host compounds is represented by formula 1 and a second host compound represented by formula 2 (abstract; ¶ [0008]). Examples of the first host compound represented by formula 1 includes compound F-1 (¶ [0039] and pg. 333).
Compound F-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1-3.
F-1:
PNG
media_image1.png
298
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1-1-3:
PNG
media_image2.png
212
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound F-1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1-1-3 wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of phenyl (claim 4);
A7 to A9, A11, and A14 are each hydrogen, and A12 and A13 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group; and
a7 and a11 are each 4, a8 and a9 are each 3, and a14 is 2.
Additionally, compound F-1 reads on the second compound of claim 9.
While Shim teaches the second host compound is represented by formula 2, Shim fails to specifically teach a compound of the claimed formula 2-2-2 (¶ [0008]).
formula 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
154
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dyatkin teaches an organic compound having the structure of Formula I, wherein the compound is used as a host material and provides improves OLED performance (abstract; ¶[0003] and [0017]). Examples of compounds having the structure of Formula I include Compound 4 (pg. 12). As shown by the structure on page 12 of Dyatkin, Compound 4 reads on Shim’s formula 2 wherein: La is a substituted C6 arylene; Ma represents a substituted 6-membered nitrogen-containing heteroaryl; and Xa to Xh each represent hydrogen (see Shim, ¶ [0014]-[0018]).
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 Shim’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, given that Dyatkin’s Compound 4 reads on Shim’s formula 2, 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 Shim 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_image4.png
245
305
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2-2-2:
PNG
media_image5.png
275
328
media_image5.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 Shim (US 2017/0342057 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, Shim in view of Dyatkin teach the organic electroluminescent device including compound F1 and Compound 4 as hosts and a phosphorescent dopant, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Shim in view of Dyatkin fail to specifically teach a device comprising compound F1 and Compound 4 as hosts in combination with a claimed phosphorescent dopant. However, Shim does teach the dopant material is not limited (¶ [0045]).
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_image6.png
139
230
media_image6.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 light-emitting layer of the device of Shim 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 Shim 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.
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