DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/11/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the Specification as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/11/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2015-0030511) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/11/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 10-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 10-2018-0027468) in view of Itai et al. (WO 2012/005361 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/11/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-9 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 10-2018-0027468) in view of Chen et al. (CN 110229071 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/11/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-3, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2015-0030511) in view of Ma et al. (US 2013/0175510 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-2015-0030511 (herein referred to as “Park et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Park et al. discloses a composition as host material comprising the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising “at least one” of the compounds of Chemical Formulae 2-4 for the construction of displays and the like (pages 18-19). Park et al. discloses that “two or more different compounds” of Chemical Formulae 2-4 “are mixed” (page 24); an embodiment is disclosed wherein two different compounds are mixed (the simplest and most easily envisioned being of equal amounts) (page 37). The following compounds are disclosed as embodiments for Chemical Formulae 2 and 3, respectively:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 26 of Park et al.) (first compound) such that R3-4 = hydrogen, ring A = Applicant’s Chemical Formula I-5 (with R10-12 = hydrogen and X1 = S), L3 = single bond, Z1-3 = N, L1-2 = single bond, and R1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae I, IE, and IE-1 and
PNG
media_image2.png
154
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 28 of Park et al.) (second compound) such that R13-14 = hydrogen, ring B = Applicant’s Chemical Formulae II-1 (with R15-18 = hydrogen, L5 = L8 = single bond, and Ar2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl)), L4 = single bond, and Ar1 = substituted C6 aryl group (substituted phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae II, IIA, and IIA-1. Park et al. further discloses an organic EL device comprising the following layers: substrate (110), anode (120), hole-injecting layer (130), hole-transporting layer (140), buffer layer (141), light-emitting auxiliary layer (151), light-emitting layer (150), electron-transporting layer (160), electron-injecting layer (170), and cathode (180) (Fig. 1); its inventive composition comprise the light-emitting layer (page 10). However, Park et al. does not explicitly disclose a third compound as recited in the claims.
Ma et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
298
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 40) (third compound) such that R34-38 = hydrogen, L8 = unsubstituted C6 arylene group (phenylene), R39-41 = hydrogen, and X2 = O of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae IIIB and IIIB-4. Ma et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host materials in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with improved stability and efficiency (Abstract; [0037]). It would have been obvious to further incorporate Compound 2O as disclosed by Ma et al. (above) (of any arbitrary amount during the normal course of experimentation) into the host material composition comprising the explicitly disclosed embodiments 3-2 and 4-2 (which are originally present at equal amounts). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Ma et al. which teaches viable host materials (which are also fully encompassed by Park et al.’s Chemical Formula 4), the use of which results in a device with improved stability and efficiency.
Claims 1-3, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 10-2018-0027468) in view of Ma et al. (US 2013/0175510 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-2018-0027468 (herein referred to as “Ahn et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ahn et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays and the like comprising a light-emitting layer comprising a host that comprises a “plurality of host compounds,” at least one of which corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 and a second host compound which corresponds to Chemical Formula 2 ([0010], [0023]); an embodiment is disclosed wherein the two hosts are mixed at equal weight concentrations ([0242]). The following compounds are disclosed as embodiments for Chemical Formulae 1 and 2, respectively:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
64
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 27 of Ahn et al.) (second compound) such that R13-14 = hydrogen, ring B = Applicant’s Chemical Formula II-1 (with R15-17 = hydrogen, L5 = single bond, and Ar2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl)), L4 = single bond, and Ar1 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae II, IIA, and IIA-1 and
PNG
media_image5.png
68
60
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 31 of Ahn et al.) (first compound) such that Z1-3 = N, R3-4 = hydrogen, ring A = Applicant’s Chemical Formula I-1 (with R5-6 = hydrogen), L1-3 = single bond, and R1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae I, IA, and IA-1. Ahn et al. further that the device comprises a hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, and electron-blocking layer interposed between the light-emitting layer and the anode, as well as an electron buffer layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, and electron-injecting layer interposed between the light-emitting layer and the cathode ([0234]-[0235]). However, Ahn et al. does not explicitly disclose a third compound as recited in the claims.
Ma et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
298
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 40) (third compound) such that R34-38 = hydrogen, L8 = unsubstituted C6 arylene group (phenylene), R39-41 = hydrogen, and X2 = O of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae IIIB and IIIB-4. Ma et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host materials in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with improved stability and efficiency (Abstract; [0037]). It would have been obvious to further incorporate Compound 2O as disclosed by Ma et al. (above) (of any arbitrary amount during the normal course of experimentation) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ahn et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Ma et al. which teaches viable host materials, the use of which results in a device with improved stability and efficiency.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (KR 10-2018-0027468) in view of Hong et al. (KR 10-2019-0135398).
Examiner’s Note: The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-2018-0027468 (herein referred to as “Ahn et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The Office as relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication KR 10-2019-0135398 (herein referred to as “Hong et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ahn et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays and the like comprising a light-emitting layer comprising a host that comprises a “plurality of host compounds,” at least one of which corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 and a second host compound which corresponds to Chemical Formula 2 ([0010], [0023]); an embodiment is disclosed wherein the two hosts are mixed at equal weight concentrations ([0242]). The following compounds are disclosed as embodiments for Chemical Formulae 1 and 2, respectively:
PNG
media_image4.png
90
64
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 27 of Ahn et al.) (second compound) such that R13-14 = hydrogen, ring B = Applicant’s Chemical Formula II-1 (with R15-17 = hydrogen, L5 = single bond, and Ar2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl)), L4 = single bond, and Ar1 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae II, IIA, and IIA-1 and
PNG
media_image5.png
68
60
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 31 of Ahn et al.) (first compound) such that Z1-3 = N, R3-4 = hydrogen, ring A = Applicant’s Chemical Formula I-1 (with R5-6 = hydrogen), L1-3 = single bond, and R1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae I, IA, and IA-1. Ahn et al. further that the device comprises a hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, and electron-blocking layer interposed between the light-emitting layer and the anode, as well as an electron buffer layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, and electron-injecting layer interposed between the light-emitting layer and the cathode ([0234]-[0235]). However, Ahn et al. does not explicitly disclose a third compound as recited in the claims.
Hong et al. discloses an organic EL device comprising a light-emitting layer comprising host material in combination with dopant material; the former includes aromatic ring derivatives ([0135]). Hong et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
112
128
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 26) (third compound) such that R22-25 = hydrogen, R26 = unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl), L7 = substituted C3 heterocyclic group (phenyl-substituted triazinylene) (alternatively, substituted phenylene group), and R27-33 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae IIIA and IIIA-4. Hong et al. discloses its inventive compounds (with charge-injecting/transporting properties) can be used as material for any one of the organic layers of the device, the use of which results in a device with improved efficiency and low driving voltage ([0023]). It would have been further obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Hong et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ahn et al. (as additional host material, which can be easily added in any arbitrary amount during the normal course of experimentation). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hong et al. which teaches the general use of its inventive compounds in any one of the organic layers (and further teaches aromatic ring derivatives as preferable host material); further motivation is provided by the fact that Hong et al. teaches that the use of its inventive compounds results in a device with improved efficiency and low driving voltage.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments on pages 23-30 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art in view of the newly amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. 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
Prosecution Insights