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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed January 15, 2026, which amends claims 1-3 and 14-16, cancels claims 4-8, 17, and 18, and adds claims 26-28. Claims 1-3, 9-16, and 19-28 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, January 15, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237) and Min et al. (US 2015/0001488) as set forth in the Office action mailed October 21, 2025. The applicant cancels claims 4-8; therefore, the claims are no longer pending.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, January 15, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237), Min et al. (US 2015/0001488), and Kim et al. (US 2015/0280159) as set forth in the Office action mailed October 21, 2025. The applicant cancels claims 17 and 18; therefore, the claims are no longer pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office points out that each reference does need to teach each and every limitation in the claims, but the combination of references need to teach all the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Regarding the combining of Sugino with Min to add a second host material. The Office points out that Sugino does not teach the presence of a second host material, but Min teaches that adding a second host material improves the efficiency and lowers the drive voltage of the device. Given that the first host of Min comprises a triazine group and the second host of Min does not comprise a triazine group, one of ordinary skill in the art would select the none triazine containing compounds to select as the second host material to use with the host material of Sugino. One would expect that adding the non-triazine host material to the device of Sugino one would expect an increase in lifetime and lower drive voltage of the device. The applicant has not provided any information indicating that this is the case. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-16, and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the phrase “each of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is independently CR53” does not have support in the specification. The specification has support for each of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is independently CR53 or N, where at least one of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is N. The specification requires at least one of Y1, Y2 and Y3 to be N. There is no support in the specification where Y1, Y2 and Y3 are all CR53. Also none of the applicant’s taught compounds meet this limitation.
Claims 2, 3, 9-13, 15, 16, and 19-28 are rejected due to dependence of the claims on claims 1 and 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1, which claim 26 depends, requires R1-R6 to be independently a protium, a deuterium, or an undeuterated or deuterated C1-C20 alkyl group, but claim 26 comprises compounds where R1-R6 are present and are not one of a protium, a deuterium, or an undeuterated or deuterated C1-C20 alkyl group. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1, which claim 28 depends, requires each of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is independently CR53, but in the compound in claim 28 each of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is independently are all N. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237) (hereafter “Kwon”) and Min et al. (US 2015/0001488) (hereafter “Min”).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 26-28, Sugino teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0337]-[0347]). Sugino teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs [0187]-[0220] and [0343]). Sugino teaches that the light emitting layer can have second host material (paragraph [0215]). Sugino teaches that the phosphorescent dopant can emit green light and can be metal complex (is not limited), but specifically teaches using
PNG
media_image1.png
117
80
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0199]-[0206] and [0343]). Sugino teaches that the host material can be
PNG
media_image2.png
133
201
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
158
187
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
177
185
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image5.png
238
163
media_image5.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0163] and [0339]-[0464]).
Sugino does not teach where the phosphorescent dopant meets applicant’s claimed formula 1 and does not specifically teach where the layer comprises a second host material.
Kwon teaches green emitting phosphorescent dopants for use in electroluminescent devices (paragraphs [0149] and [0290]-[0295]). Kwon teaches that the phosphorescent dopant can be
PNG
media_image6.png
191
175
media_image6.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image7.png
209
192
media_image7.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0145], [0149], and [0290]-[0295]). Kwon teaches that when these metal complexes are used instead of
PNG
media_image1.png
117
80
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, the device has improved EQE and lifetime (paragraphs [0149] and [0290]-[0297]).
Min teaches an comprising two host materials and a green phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs [0140]-[0148]). Min teaches that the first host material can comprise a triazine group and the second host material can be a biscarbazole compound, such as
PNG
media_image8.png
167
199
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
164
166
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image10.png
165
184
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0128] and [0171]). Min teaches that when these compounds are used as the second host material the device has a lower drive voltage and improved efficiency (paragraph [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sugino so the phosphorescent dopant was
PNG
media_image6.png
191
175
media_image6.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image7.png
209
192
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as taught by Kwon. The motivation would have been to improve the EQE and lifetime of the device.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sugino to include a second host material,
PNG
media_image8.png
167
199
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
164
166
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image10.png
165
184
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, as taught by Min. Sugino teaches that the light emitting layer can comprise multiple host materials. The motivation would have been to improve the lifetime and efficiency of the device.
Claim(s) 9-16 and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugino et al. (US 2018/0037546) (hereafter “Sugino”) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237) (hereafter “Kwon”) and Min et al. (US 2015/0001488) (hereafter “Min”) as applied to claims 1-3 and 26-28 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0280159) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 9-16 and 19-25, Sugino in view of Kwon and Min does not teach where the electroluminescent device is a tandem electroluminescent device with a charge generation layer.
Kim teaches a tandem electroluminescent device comprising an anode, first emitting unit, a charge generation layer, a second emitting unit, an optional charge generation layer, an optional third emitting unit, and a cathode (paragraphs [0021]-[0068]). Kim teaches that each emitting unit can have a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, and an electron transporting layer, where the light emitting layer can comprise 1, 2 or 3 layers (paragraphs [0021]-[0068]). Kim teaches that the light emitting layer in the first emitting unit can emit blue light, the light emitting layer in the second emitting unit comprises multiple layer, 2 or 3 layers, where one layer emits red light, the second layer can emit green light, and the third can emit green/yellow, and the light emitting layer of the third emitting unit can emit blue light (paragraphs [0090]-[0106]). Kim teaches that using tandem electroluminescent devices leads to improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency (paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention so electroluminescent device of Sugino in view of Kwon and Min is made into a tandem electroluminescent device as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to improve the reproduction range and emitting efficiency of the device.
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 ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759