DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 04/09/26.
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 drawings and the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/10/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claims 13-22 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/10/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 13-22 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/10/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 13-22 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) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/10/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 Zeng et al. (US 2016/0293853 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.
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).
Zeng 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 performance (Abstract; [0003], [0075]):
PNG
media_image2.png
298
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 20) such that d = e = f = 1, Ar8 = hydrogen, Ar6 = unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 12 carbon atoms (dibenzofuranyl), and Ar7 = unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 12 carbon atoms (biphenyl) of Applicant’s formula (9). It would have been obvious to incorporate Compound D3 as disclosed by Zeng 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 Zeng et al., which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved performance.
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 Zeng 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 Compound D3 as disclosed by Cho et al. and Zeng 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)-42, respectively, differing only in the nature of one of the N-aryl groups (i.e., are homologs) or are mere positional isomers and thus can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments on pages 17-20 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above. The Applicant has further argued for unexpected results (Table 2 of the present Specification; Table 1). The Office has carefully reviewed the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 field 04/092/6. However, the Office finds the data unpersuasive as the data is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. For instance, notice the rather wide scope of the host material of formula (1) as recited in Claim 1, wherein X and Z1-8 = independently N or C-Ar’ encompassing a wide number of chemically distinct compounds (i.e., comprising a variable number of nitrogen atoms within the compound skeletons) producing device properties which cannot be reasonably extrapolated from the Applicant’s data.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. 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