Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 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. Claim 1 requires many substituted groups whose scopes are ill-defined. The term “substituted” is described in the specification as being selected from a group that includes, for example, a substituted heteroaryl group wherein the substituent of this substituted heteroaryl is a substituted carbazolyl (see page 10). The cyclic argument does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the term, rendering claim 1 indefinite. The other claims depend on claim 1 but fail to remedy the deficiency and they are indefinite as well.
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0389456 A1 to Cho et al.
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al. discloses an OLED having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/EBL/EML/HBL/ETL/EIL/cathode (p. 191) wherein the EML comprises dopant PhGD (7 wt%) and a combination of host compound 1-38 and host compound 2-B-30 in a weight ratio of 4:6,
PNG
media_image1.png
348
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
556
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
310
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Compounds 2-B-30 and 1-38 are representative of the claimed compounds for formulae 1 and 2, respectively, but compound PhGD is different from the claimed compound of formula 3. Nevertheless, since Cho et al. teaches that one of the ligands can be replaced by
PNG
media_image4.png
142
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
where R300 - R302 are similar to the R9 – R11 of the claimed compound (p. 154), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the prior art device by replacing the PhGD with one of its equivalents, such as an iridium complex having one equivalent of acac and 2 equivalents of
PNG
media_image5.png
232
265
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
and expect the same result. Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A)&(B). So are claims 2-5 and 7-8.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2015/0116776 A to (= US 2017/0117488 A1) to Ahn et al. in view of US 2024/0389456 A1 to Cho et al.
Regarding claim 1, Ahn et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises a phosphorescent dopant and 2 host materials having the following respective structures,
PNG
media_image6.png
246
496
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image7.png
232
404
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
and exemplified by
PNG
media_image8.png
426
460
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image9.png
278
384
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
The phosphorescent dopant is typically an iridium complex such as the following
PNG
media_image10.png
278
460
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
The three compounds correspond to the claimed compounds. While Ahn et al. discloses that the first host compound can be deuterated (see [0012]), it fails to provide an example that is representative of the claimed compound of formula 2. However, Cho et al. (see above) teaches that the deuteration of the biscarbazole host material lowers the energy of the ground state and weakens the intermolecular interaction, and thereby enables the formation of amorphous thin film, which in turn improves heat resistance, efficiency and lifespan and reduces the driving voltage (see [0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the device disclosed by Ahn et al. by replacing the non-deuterated biscarbazoles with the heavily deuterated versions suggested by Cho et al. to achieve higher efficiency and lifespan at a reduced driving voltage. Claim 1 is accordingly unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D). So are claims 2-3, 5 and 7-8. The features of claim 4 are disclosed by Ahn et al. on pages 211+. So are the compounds of claim 6. For example, compound H1-68 is met by compound H2-487 disclosed by Ahn et al. on page 156.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights