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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 3/20/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 such that the organic electroluminescent compounds adhere to any one of formulae 1-1 to 1-3. Claim 2 has been canceled and claim 10 has been added. Applicants argue that the amendments to claim 1 should cause the prior art rejection to Huang et al. (US 2023/0200219) to be withdrawn. Specifically, Applicants point to the amendments to claim 1 regarding variables R11 and R12 and variables L1 and L2 which further define the compounds. The naphthyl group which is a required feature in the compounds taught by Huang et al., as argued by Applicants, does not read on any of variables R11, R12, L1, and L2. For this reason, the prior art rejection to Huang et al. has been withdrawn. However, new prior art rejections appear below which are necessitated by Applicants amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0359219, cited on the PTO-892 form dated 10/22/25).
Claim 1: Kim et al. teaches compounds which satisfy independent claim 1. One such compound is compound 6 which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
178
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 21). This compound anticipates formula 1-2 of claim 1. As applied to formula 1-2, compound 6 has variable Ar’ equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group, R’1 and R’2 equal to methyl, L’ equal to an unsubstituted o-phenylene group, Ar2 equal to a carbazolyl group, both L groups equal to a single bond, both L1 and both L2 groups equal to single bonds, and both R11 groups and both R12 groups equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Claim 4: Claim 4 serves to further limit embodiments where any one of the variables in claim 1 are substituted. However, this is not required in claim 1. For this reason, Kim et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claim 4 despite not having any substituents on any of the variables in Formula 1-2.
Claims 6, 8, and 9: The compounds taught by Kim et al. which includes compound 6 above, are taught to be employed as host materials in organic electroluminescent devices. The exemplified devices are comprised of an anode, a hole transport region, an emission layer comprising one of the inventive compounds taught therein, an electron transport region, and a cathode. The employment of any one of the explicitly taught compounds, including compound 6, in the manner taught in the devices examples is at once envisaged, thereby anticipating claims 6, 8, and 9.
Claim 10: Claim 10 serves to further limit an embodiment where the compound of claim 1 is represented by Formula 1-1. However, because claim 1 is not limited to compounds to formula 1-1, Kim et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claim 10. In other words, if the language present in claim 10 was added to claim 1, it would not change the rejection described above since compound 6 reads on formula 1-2.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kushibiki et al. (US Pat. 5,824,443, cited on the PTO-892 form dated 10/22/25).
Claims 1 and 4: Compound 13A of Kushibiki et al. which has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
130
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
anticipates Formula 1-1 of claim 1. As applied to Formula 1-1 compound 13A has Ar’ equal to an unsubstituted phenyl, R’1 and R’2 equal to methyl, L’ equal to a single bond, Ar equal to an unsubstituted p-phenylene, L equal to a single bond, L1 and L2 equal to a single bond, and R11 and R12 equal to a methyl-substituted phenyl group (p-tolyl). Claim 3: Claim 3 serves to further limit embodiments where the compound of claim 1 is represented by Formulae 1-2 or 1-3. Since the compound above reads on Formula 1-1, claim 3 serves to further limit optional embodiments. For this reason, Kushibiki et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claim 3 despite not teaching a compound satisfying Formulae 1-2 or 1-3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0359219) as applied to claim 1 above.
Kim et al. teaches compounds which satisfy claim 1 which are employed as host materials in organic electroluminescent devices. While the exemplified devices only comprise a single host material, Kim et al. explicitly teaches that a second host material may be employed (paragraph 0280). The second host material is further taught to include compounds which adhere to general formulae 301-1 or 301-2 as taught in paragraph 0294. Specific second host materials are further taught in paragraph 0313 and include many host materials which satisfy formulae 11-13 of claim 7, including compounds H36 through H52. The selection of a second host, particularly one of the specific second host compounds which are electron deficient would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, the exemplified host materials which comprise a compound satisfying Formula 1-2 of claim 1 as a first host material and an electron deficient second host material such as compounds H36-H38, H40, H41, H43-H46, and H52 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to include a second electron deficient host material would be to allow for efficient hole-transport and electron transport within the emission layer as compared to employing only the hole-transporting host materials as taught by Kim et al. The specific compounds mentioned directly above satisfy formulae 11, 12, or 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed for reasons already of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights