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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/17/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 12, 15, and 17 are amended, and claim 25 is new. Claims 1–11 and 13–14 have been cancelled previously. Claims 12 and 15–25 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 17 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12, 16, 18–21, and 23–24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0123230 A1, hereinafter “Kang”) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2016/0268516 A1, hereinafter “Tanaka”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/17/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 39 of the reply dated 07/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 12, 16, 18–21, and 23–24 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant argues that Kang in view of Tanaka does not teach a compound wherein at least two of X1 to X5 is represented by an N atom.
Examiner's response – The Examiner agrees. The cited art does not teach nor suggest a composition comprising a compound wherein at least two of X1 to X5 is represented by an N atom.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 09/06/2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner’s position that at least a chemical structure formula of Formula (1) should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 22 and 25 are 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.
Claims 22 and 25 recite N compounds which do not read on Applicant’s Formula (1) of claim 12 since they do not comprise Formula b. For example, take Compound N1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
264
169
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
167
114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
323
157
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl),
R1 to R4 are -L1Ar1 to -L4Ar4, respectively,
L1, L3, and L4 are each a single bond,
L2 is a C6 arylene group (phenylene),
Ar1, Ar3, and Ar4 are each a hydrogen,
Ar2 is a C25 aryl group (spirobifluorene).
Claim 12 recites “wherein at least one of Ar1 to Ar4 of the compound N is selected from a group represented by Formula b.” Therefore, Compound N1 fails to read on Applicant’s Formula (1) since none of Ar1 to Ar4 in compound N1 are represented by Formula b.
Additionally, claim 25 depends on claim 17 however not all of the compounds recited in claim 25 incorporate all of the limitations of claim 17. Claim 12 recites “at least one of Ar1 to Ar4 of the compound M is selected from a group represented by Formula a”. Claim 17 further defines Formula a. For example, take Compound M1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
264
169
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
216
118
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
238
293
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
252
161
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl),
R1 to R4 are -L1Ar1 to -L4Ar4, respectively,
L1 to L4 are each a single bond,
Ar1, Ar3, and Ar4 are each a hydrogen,
Ar2 is represented by Formula a of claim 12 wherein:
X1 to X3 are each N,
X4 is CRX4 and X5 is CRX5 wherein RX4 and RX5 are each a C6 aryl group (phenyl).
Compound M1 comprises Formula a of claim 12, however it does not comprise Formula a of claim 17. Therefore, claim 25 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
An example of a compound recited in claim 25 which incorporates all the limitations of claim 17 is M197 (shown below) which comprises Formula a of claim 17 (circled)
PNG
media_image7.png
290
133
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
238
293
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
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 22 and 25 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.
Claims 22 and 25 recite compounds which do not read on Applicant’s claim 12. Therefore, it is unclear which compounds are regarded as the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 15–21, and 23–24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest an organic electroluminescence material comprising at least one compound M and at least one compound N wherein the compound M and the compound N have a structure represented by claimed Formula (1) wherein Ar1 to Ar4 of the compound M is selected from a group represented by Formula a, and wherein Ar1 to Ar4 of the compound N is selected from a group represented by Formula b. Formula a is further defined wherein at least two of X1 to X5 is N.
PNG
media_image1.png
264
169
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
216
118
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
167
114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kang et al. (US 2022/0123230 A1), cited in the previous Office Action, is considered the closest prior art.
Kang teaches organic electroluminescent compounds which exhibit performances suitable for use in an organic electroluminescent device. Specifically, an organic electroluminescent device comprising the compounds taught by Kang in the light-emitting layer have improved luminous efficiency and/or lifetime properties compared to conventional organic electroluminescent devices [0019]. Kang teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer wherein one organic layer is a light-emitting layer comprising a compound of present disclosure [0059]. Kang further teaches the compounds of present disclosure may be a host material. Additionally, the organic electroluminescent compound of the present disclosure may be used as a co-host material comprising a first and second host material [0058]. Specifically, Kang teaches C-64 and C-65 [pg. 19], which are represented by Kang’s Formula 1 [0007] and more specifically Kang’s Formula 1-4 [0041].
PNG
media_image8.png
239
241
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
258
217
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
129
174
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
287
235
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Kang’s Compound C-65 reads on Applicant’s compound N. However, Kang’s Compound C-64 fails to read on Applicant’s compound M since it does not comprise at least two N atoms in the dibenzofuran. Kang’s Formula 1-4 recites that R11 to R14 are represented by -L1(Ar1) [0042], wherein Ar1 may be a substituted or unsubstituted (5- to 30-membered) heteroaryl [0036].
However, Kang fails to further define (5- to 30-membered) heteroaryl to be a compound which reads on Applicant’s Formula a wherein at least two of X1 to X5 is N. Additionally, Kang does not further define “substituted” to include an example which reads on Applicant’s Formula a wherein at least two of X1 to X5 is N [0027].
Therefore, Kang does not teach or suggest an electroluminescence material comprising at least one compound M and at least one compound N wherein the compound M and the compound N have a structure represented by claimed Formula (1) wherein Ar1 to Ar4 of the compound M is selected from a group represented by Formula a, and wherein Ar1 to Ar4 of the compound N is selected from a group represented by Formula b. Formula a is further defined wherein at least two of X1 to X5 is N.
Tanaka et al. (US 2016/0268516 A1), cited in the previous Office Action, is considered relevant to the claimed invention.
Tanaka teaches host compounds may be used singly or may be used in combination of two or more compounds. By using plural host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of charge, thereby it is possible to achieve high efficiency of an organic electroluminescent element [0190].
However, Tanaka fails to teach a compound which reads on Applicant’s Formula 1 and Formula a. Tanaka also fails to suggest a motivation to include a heteroaryl comprising at least two N atoms in the compounds taught by Kang. Accordingly, Tanaka fails to remedy the deficiencies of Kang.
Claims 15–21, and 23–24 depend on claim 12 and thus are allowed for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 12 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (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.
/J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights