DETAILED ACTION
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.
Restriction/Election Requirement
The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s election of Group 1 (drawn to device) in the Response filed 10/27/25 as set forth in the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed 08/28/25.
The election reads on Claims 13-22.
Claims 13-23 are pending. Claim 23 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
6. The drawings are objected to because the "FIG. 1" label of the single viewing cannot appear in the sheet. See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
7. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification refers to the single view drawing as "FIG. 1.” However, all instances of "FIG. 1" should be replaced by "The FIGURE" or "the FIGURE" as numbered abbreviations are not allowed as there is only one single viewing. See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). Furthermore, the “FIG. 1” label in the Drawings should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
8. Claims 13-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13, 16 and 21, which the other claims are dependent upon, recites the structure of formulae (1), (2), and (9)-(13) which are all graphically unclear due to their low resolution; many of the variables have faded lines and the numerical subscripts of Ar6-8 are barely legible due to their fuzziness. They need to be replaced by structures comprising bonds, atoms, and labels which are clearly legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 13-22 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, Claims 13 and 21, which the other claims are dependent upon, recite the broad recitation “the other of the host materials is a compound represented by the following general formula (2)” or “a compound represented by the following general formula (2),” and the claims also recite “furthermore the general formula (2) is represented by any of the following general formulas (9) to (13),” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation (notice that general formula (2) is broader in scope than that of general formulae (9)-(13)). The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (WO 2018/236092 A1) in view of Asari et al. (WO 2007/063796 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2020/0176688 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2018/236092 A1 (herein referred to as “Cho et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers cited herein correspond to numbers found in the national phase publication.
The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2009/0295276 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2007/063796 A1 (herein referred to as “Asari et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all figure, page, and paragraph cited herein correspond to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Regarding Claims 13-21, Cho et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising an organic layer (light-emitting layer) comprising a host material comprising a first compound of a combination of Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 and a second compound of Chemical Formula 3, which is doped by (phosphorescent) dopant material ([0010], [0065], [0102]). The host material composition may further comprise more host(s), in addition to the first and second compounds ([0109]). An embodiment is disclosed for the first compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
268
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 11) such that a-c = 1, Ar = hydrogen, Ar1 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl), X = N, Y = O, Z2 = carbon, Z1 = Z3-8 = CH, and ring A = Applicant’s formula (1a) (with Ar2 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms (phenyl)) of Applicant’s formulae (1) and (4). However, Cho et al. does not explicitly disclose a host material of Applicant’s formula (2).
Asari et al. discloses the following compound as phosphorescent host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a device with improved luminous efficiency (Abstract; [0032]-[0033]):
PNG
media_image2.png
300
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 4) such that d-f = 1, Ar8 = hydrogen and Ar6-7 = substituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms (substituted phenyl) of Applicant’s formula (9). It would have been obvious to incorporate compound 3 as disclosed by Asari et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Cho et al. as additional host material. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Asari et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved luminous efficiency.
Regarding Claim 22, it is the position of the Office that the combination of host materials as disclosed by Cho et al. in view of Asari et al. (above) would inherently read the physical limitation as recited in the claim. Evidence is provided by the fact that compounds [A-1] and 3 as disclosed by Cho et al. and Asari et al., respectively, are fully encompassed by Applicant’s formulae (1) and (9), and also highly similar to the Applicant’s preferred embodiments (1)-1 and (2)-1, respectively, differing only in the nature of one of the N-aryl groups (i.e., are homologs and thus can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties).
Conclusion
14. 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