DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on January 16, 2026.
Claims 1 – 7, 10 and 14 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 8, 9, and 11 – 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 7, 10, and 14 – 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed January 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolohan as set forth in the office action filed October 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Danz as set forth in the office action filed October 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 8 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan as set forth in the office action filed October 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 6, 7, and 11 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as set forth in the office action filed October 16, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Wolohan reference fails to teach or suggest a compound corresponding to a combination of Chemical Formula 3 and 4 as recited in amended claim 1, wherein moieties *-L3-Ar5 and *-L4-Ar6 are each independently a moiety of Group II. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted previously and again below, Wolohan teaches that the compound may be used in combination with additional host materials, including host materials taught in reference US20170263869 ([0143]). The ‘869 reference teaches at least compound 1-65, which still reads on the claimed second compound.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1 – 7, 10, and 14 – 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolohan (US20200168812A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10, Wolohan teaches:
A composition for an organic optoelectronic device, the composition comprising a first compound and a second compound, wherein the first compound a compound being represented by Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
380
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Wolohan teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
214
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Abstract) for use as hosts in OLEDs ([0002]). A particular compound taught by Wolohan is
PNG
media_image3.png
212
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0104]). This compound reads on the claims Formula wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted carbazolyl group, namely
PNG
media_image4.png
92
94
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in claim 6; R1 to R5 are all hydrogen. This compound reads on Chemical Formula 1D in claim 2. This compound is the same as compound 59 in claim 7
PNG
media_image5.png
112
134
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Wolohan teaches that compounds of Formula 1 are suitable as use as host materials for emissive layers (Claim 17).)
The composition comprising a second compound is represented by a combination of Chemical Formulae 3 and 4
PNG
media_image6.png
288
458
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Wolohan teaches that the compound may be used in combination with additional host materials ([0143]). The additional host material is interpreted as the claimed second compound. In [0143], Wolohan teaches that representative additional host materials include those taught in reference US20170263869 ([0143]), which includes indolocarbazole host materials such as 1-65
PNG
media_image7.png
288
322
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar5 and Ar6 are both represented by C-7
PNG
media_image8.png
108
104
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in Group II wherein all the R groups are hydrogen. This compound reads on Chemical Formula 3C in claim 10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide composition comprising multiple hosts, wherein one of the hosts is the compound of Chemical Formula 1 and the other host is a combination of Chemical Formula 3 and 4 based on the desire to predictably practice the invention of Wolohan and based on the totality of the teachings of Wolohan as Wolohan teaches that the components can be used in combination.
As per claims 14 and 15, Wolohan teaches:
An organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer includes a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer includes the compound(s) for an organic optoelectronic device ([0105]: “In another aspect, the present invention includes an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer, disposed between the anode and the cathode, comprising a compound according to Formula I.” & [0112]: “In one embodiment, the organic layer is an emissive layer that comprises an emitter and a host; wherein the emitter is selected from the group consisting of phosphorescent emitter, fluorescent emitter, delayed fluorescent emitter, and combination thereof; and the host is the compound of Formula I.”)
Wolohan teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Wolohan as Wolohan demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 16, Wolohan teaches:
A display device comprising the organic optoelectronic device ([0040]: “Devices fabricated in accordance with embodiments of the invention can be incorporated into a wide variety of electronic component modules (or units) that can be incorporated into a variety of electronic products or intermediate components. Examples of such electronic products or intermediate components include display screens.”)
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (WO2020145508A1, using US20220069234A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 1 – 4, 6, 7, and 10, Shin teaches:
A composition for an organic optoelectronic device, the composition comprising a first compound and a second compound, wherein the first compound a compound being represented by Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
380
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Shin teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image9.png
280
308
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0009]) for use as hosts in OLEDs ([0074]). A particular compound taught by Shin is compound 7
PNG
media_image10.png
268
346
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0055]). This compound is a structural isomer of the claimed compound which differs only in the bonding between the phenyl group and the carbazole group. The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state “A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities.” An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c). and “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to move the bonding position of the carbazole group to the ortho position as claimed. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claims Formula wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted dibenzofuran group, namely
PNG
media_image11.png
72
104
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 6; R1 to R5 are all hydrogen. This compound reads on Chemical Formula 1A in claim 2 and Chemical Formula 1A-3 in claim 3. This compound is the same as compound 14 in claim 7
PNG
media_image12.png
146
124
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. Shin also teaches compound 10
PNG
media_image13.png
264
302
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, which, when modified in the same way, reads on the claims Formula wherein Ar1 is an unsubstituted dibenzothiophene group, namely
PNG
media_image11.png
72
104
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 6; R1 to R5 are all hydrogen. This compound reads on Chemical Formula 1B in claim 2 and Chemical Formula 1B-3 in claim 4. This compound is the same as compound 34 in claim 7
PNG
media_image14.png
118
128
media_image14.png
Greyscale
. )
The composition comprising a second compound is represented by a combination of Chemical Formulae 3 and 4
PNG
media_image6.png
288
458
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(In table 6, Shin teaches the use of the compounds in a two-host system along with compound C-4
PNG
media_image15.png
210
332
media_image15.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar5 and Ar6 are both represented by C-2
PNG
media_image16.png
116
46
media_image16.png
Greyscale
in Group II wherein all the R groups are hydrogen. This compound reads on Chemical Formula 3C in claim 10.)
As per claims 14 and 15, Shin teaches:
An organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer includes a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer includes the compound(s) for an organic optoelectronic device ([0068]: “Referring to FIG. 1, an organic light emitting diode 100 according to an embodiment includes an anode 120 and a cathode 110 facing each other and an organic layer 105 disposed between the anode 120 and cathode 110.” & [0072]: “The organic layer 105 may include the light emitting layer 130, and the light emitting layer 130 may include the aforementioned compound for an organic optoelectronic device.”)
Shin teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Shin as Shin demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 16, Shin teaches:
A display device comprising the organic optoelectronic device ([0008]: “Another embodiment provides a display device including the organic optoelectronic device.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 5, the closest prior art is considered to be Danz (US20240365659A1), cited previously. Danz teaches compounds of Formula 1C-4 in claim 5. However, Danz does not teach, suggest or motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the compounds in combination with a second compound represented by a combination of Chemical Formulae 3 and 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights