DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received October 10, 2025. Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 12 are now canceled. Claims 1, 6-8, 11, and 13 were amended. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, and 13-19 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0231235 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment dated October 10, 2025.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0199911 A1) is withdrawn due to the claim cancellations.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In amended claim 6, it is unclear on page 6 of the 10/10/2025 claim set if all of the structures at the top of this page are deleted and replaced with the structures previously shown on page 5 as the page 6 portion only contains one strikethrough line. (For the purpose of examination with respect to prior art, the page 5 added groups have been considered.) Appropriate recited structures are suggested and/or required in the next claim amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0199911 A1).
Regarding the compound according to instant Formulas 1A and 1B in independent claim 1, Lee et al. teaches Formula 1 compounds for an organic EL device (see par. 10):
PNG
media_image1.png
158
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Ring B may be selected as the following a-1 and Ring A may be selected as a-2 (see par. 65), which results in a core ring group the same as the instant X1-containing ring group of Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
162
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Formula 1 X1 may be selected as O or S per instant X1 (see par. 67). Lee Ar1 and Ar2 may be aryl or heterocyclic per instant Ar2 or Ar3 (see par. 75-76) and linking groups L1 to L3 may be single bond or arylene (see par. 71) per instant L2 to L4. Ring A as a-2 may have a substituent R0, which is defined the same as R1 or R2 (see par. 66) and may be selected as aryl group or heterocyclic group (see par. 79) per instant Ar1. More specific Formula 1-1 and Formula 1-2 of Formula 1 are the same as instant 1A and 1B configurations of instant claim 1 (see par. 82):
PNG
media_image3.png
188
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
164
288
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6, Lee R0 may be selected to include at least C6 aryl, which is phenyl (see par. 66, 79) and Lee Ar1 and Ar2 may be selected as at least aryl groups phenyl, biphenyl, or naphthyl (see par. 76, 77).
Regarding claim 7, when Lee Formula 1 is selected as more specific formula 1-1 (see par. 82), L3 is selected as phenylene (see par. 71), Ar2 is selected as naphthyl (see par. 76), Ar1 is selected as phenyl (see par. 76), X1 is oxygen (see par. 67), L1 and L2 are single bond (see par. 71), and R1 of Lee et al. Formula 1-1 is selected as C6 aryl phenyl (see par. 79), the resulting compound is the same as at least instant compound “1-1”. [Note that Lee definitions for groups of Formulas 1-1 and 1-2 encompass other specific groups of compounds recited within claim 7. See full definitions throughout references and especially at par. 55-83.]
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 13, Lee et al. teaches preferably a mixture of Formula 1 and Formula 2 can be used as host of a light emitting layer (see par. 46). Formula 2 has a nitrogen containing ring the same as instant Z1 to Z3 containing ring (see par. 10):
PNG
media_image5.png
150
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding Lee et al. Formula 2, see full definitions throughout references and especially at par. 85-111. Regarding the instant X2-containing groups of instant 2-II or 2-III, the groups are taught (see par. 101 Formula 2-3 and par. 102, 105, 106). Also, single bond or aryl groups are taught corresponding to instant L5 to L7 and aryl groups such as phenyl, biphenyl or naphthyl are disclosed for Ar4 and Ar5 (see par. 92, 95, 96, 98).
Regarding device structure claim 14-19, Lee et al. teaches preferably a mixture of Formula 1 and Formula 2 can be used as host of a light emitting layer (see par. 46) of a device (see par. 51-53).
While an example Lee et al. Formula 1 compound is not set forth the same as an instant compound Formula 1A or 1B, given the teachings of the reference defining Formula 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have formed Formula 1 compounds as defined and described above wherein resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. While an example Lee et al. Formula 2 compound is not set forth the same as an instant compound Formula 2-II or 2-III, given the teachings of the reference defining Formula 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have formed Formula 2 compounds as defined and described above wherein resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a mixture of compounds as taught by Lee et al. Formulas 1 and 2 as described above for use in a layered light emitting device structure, because the compounds are taught for the purpose of a composition in a layer of a light emitting device. One would expect to achieve a plurality of host materials comprised of at least two compounds as taught by Lee et al. as discussed above, which are also the same as compounds within the instant claims, for material of a light emitting device with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding a rejection over Lee et al., applicant argues Lee has not been shown to teach or suggest the specific details of the presently claimed compounds. In response, the office maintains the Formula 1 and 2 structures taught by Lee et al. continue to encompass compounds as claimed by applicant in the present application. Note that MPEP 2123 sets forth “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).” The office submits that while Lee et al. may lack example compounds and embodiments identical to applicant’s compounds, Lee et al. renders obvious compounds, compositions, and device structures the same as claimed as discussed in the rejection. Further, applicant has not provided experimental evidence commensurate in scope with the claims to establish unexpected, superior results over the teachings of Lee et al.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer 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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786