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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1–11, 13, and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 15–24 have been newly presented.
Claim 12 has been amended.
Claims 12 and 15–24 are pending.
The examiner indicated that Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Applicant incorporated claims 3 and 5 into claim 12 to define the compound M (wherein at least one of Ar1 to Ar4 is selected form a group represented by Formula a) and compound N (wherein at least one of Ar1 to Ar4 is selected form a group represented by Formula b).
However, the scope of claim 12 was expanded by incorporating claims 3 and 5. Particularly Formula a allows for the expansion of scope into compound M molecules which were not originally included in claim 12. Therefore, a new rejection was necessitated based on the amendment and the expansion of scope.
Response to Arguments
The objections of claims 1 and 10 have been withdrawn since applicant has amended Formula a and compounds M1 to M206 and N1 to N115 to clearly show the bonds.
Applicant’s arguments see page 25 of the reply filed 02/10/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1–3, 5–11, and 13–14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 2022/0123230 A1, hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the Office Action of 11/18/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since claims 1–3, 5–11, and 13–14 have been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Dongcheng et al. (J. Mater. Chem. C. 2014, 2, 9565, hereafter “Dongcheng”) set forth in the last Office Action has been fully considered and has been withdrawn since claim 4 has been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 3–4 and 7–8 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action has been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections of claims 3–4, Applicant has amended the claims to exclude the language “RX1 to RX5 are present individually without forming a ring” in the newly added Claim 12. Regarding the rejections of claims 7–8, Applicant has amended the claims to exclude the language “RT1 to RT8 are present individually without forming a ring” in the newly added Claim 12. The 112(b) rejections over claims 3–4 and 7–8 have been withdrawn since claims 3–4 and 7–8 have been canceled, however the interpretation of ring A in newly added claim 12 remains unclear. Therefore the 112(b) rejection has been revised and has been applied to claim 12 (discussed below).
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Applicant recites Formula a (shown below) wherein X1 to X5 may be N or CRX1 to CRX5, respectively. Applicant then recites that any adjacent two of RX1 to RX5 are joined to form a ring A, and the ring A is a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C30 aromatic ring or a substituted or unsubstituted C3-C30 heteroaromatic ring.
PNG
media_image1.png
171
107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it is unclear whether this ring A includes the moiety represented by Formula a or whether ring A is adjacent to the moiety represented by Formula a. For example, take claim 17 wherein applicant recites that ring A is selected from the structures shown below. There are two interpretations: one wherein ring A is substituted off of the moiety represented by Formula a, and the other wherein ring A is the full structure. Interpretation 1 results in ring A being a C6 aromatic ring (benzene). Interpretation 2 results in ring A being a C8 heteroaromatic ring (quinazoline).
PNG
media_image2.png
143
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
186
277
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
186
213
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this case it appears as though ring A includes the moiety represented by Formula a (i.e. interpretation 2), as in claim 17 ring A is being selected from the full structures. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, ring A will be interpreted as including the moiety represented by Formula a.
Claims 15–24 are rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claim 12.
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.
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 12, 16, 18–21, 23–24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0123230 A1, hereafter “Kang) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2016/0268516 A1, hereafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding Claim 12, 18–21, 23–24, 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].
However, Kang does not teach an organic electroluminescent device embodiment which comprises C-64 and C-65 as co-host materials.
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].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use C-64 and C-65 together as hosts in the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device, based on the teaching of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the transfer of charge thereby achieving a high efficiency organic electroluminescent device, as taught by Tanaka, and to produce an organic electroluminescent device with improved luminous efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Kang.
Per Claim 12, the co-host system comprising C-64 and C-65 reads on Applicant’s limitation since C-64 reads on Applicant’s compound M represented by Formula (1) and Formula a (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
209
121
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
171
107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
239
241
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 wherein,
X1 to X5 are CRX1 to CRX5, respectively,
RX1, RX3, and RX4 are each hydrogen,
RX2 and RX5 are joined to form a ring A which is an unsubstituted C7 heteroaromatic ring (benzofuran).
C-65 reads on Applicant’s compound N represented by Formula (1) and Formula b (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
209
121
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
123
99
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
258
217
media_image8.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 b wherein,
Ar5 is a C10 aryl group (naphthalene),
Ar6 is a C6 aryl group (benzene),
Ar5 and Ar6 are bonded together to form a carbazole.
Per Claim 18, the co-host system comprising C-64 and C-65 reads on Applicant’s limitation since in C-65 Ar5 is represented by phenyl and Ar6 is represented by naphthyl.
Per Claim 19, the co-host system comprising C-64 and C-65 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Ar2 in C-65 is represented Formula c (shown below),
PNG
media_image9.png
169
175
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
258
217
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein:
RT1, RT2, RT5 to RT8 are each hydrogen,
RT3 and RT3 are joined to form a ring B which is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic ring (benzene).
Per Claim 20, the co-host system comprising C-64 and C-65 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Formula c in C-65 is represented by c-3 (shown below), wherein RT1, RT2, RT5 to RT8 are each hydrogen.
PNG
media_image10.png
171
175
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 21, the co-host system comprising C-64 and C-65 reads on Applicant’s limitation since L1 to L4 are each represented by a bond in both C-64 and C-65.
Per Claim 23, the organic electroluminescent device including a first electrode, second electrode, and a light-emitting layer between the electrodes comprising the co-host system or C-64 and C-65, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation.
Per Claim 24, Kang teaches an organic electroluminescent device of present disclosure may be used in a display system such as a smart phone, tablet, TV. Additionally, it could be used in a lighting system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic electroluminescent device comprising C-64 and C-65, as described above, in a display system, based on the teaching of Kang. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce an organic electroluminescent device with improved luminous efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Kang.
Regarding Claim 12 and 16, the co-host system comprising C-64 and C-65 does not read on Applicant’s limitation since C-64 RX2 and RX5 are not represented by the groups listed.
C-64 is represented by Kang’s Formula 1 and more specifically Formula 1-4 (shown below),
PNG
media_image11.png
120
138
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
253
195
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
239
241
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein:
L is a single bond,
Ar is a C6 aryl (phenyl),
R11 and R13 to R18 are each hydrogen,
R12 is represented by -L1(Ar1) wherein L1 is a single bond and Ar1 is a 13 membered heteroaryl.
Kang teaches at least one R11 to R18 is represented by -L1(Ar1) [0011]. Therefore, more than one R11 to R18 may be represented by -L1(Ar1). Take C-49 [pg. 16] as an example wherein there are two substituents represented by -L1(Ar1) (shown below). Kang teaches other compounds which are modified at other positions such as C-35 [pg. 14] wherein R14 is represented by -L1(Ar1) wherein L1 is a single bond and Ar1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) substituted with two 13 membered heteroaryl (dibenzofuran) (shown below).
PNG
media_image13.png
338
231
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
303
295
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify C-64 by adding the substituent of C-35 to R14, because it would have been choosing between the substituents exemplified by Kang, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host material in the light-emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Kang and possessing the benefits taught by Kang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Kang’s Formula 1 having the improved luminous efficiency and lifetime benefits [0019] taught by Kang in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Per Claim 12, the co-host system comprising C-64, as modified above (hereafter “Modified C-64”), and C-65 reads on Applicant’s limitation since Modified C-64 reads on Applicant’s compound M represented by Formula (1) and Formula a (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
209
121
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
171
107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
399
409
media_image15.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 and Ar3 are each a hydrogen,
Ar2 is represented by Formula a wherein,
X1 to X5 are CRX1 to CRX5, respectively,
RX1, RX3, and RX4 are each hydrogen,
RX2 and RX5 are joined to form a ring A which is an unsubstituted C7 heteroaromatic ring (benzofuran).
Ar4 are represented by Formula a wherein,
X1 to X5 are CRX1 to CRX5, respectively,
RX1, RX2, and RX3 are each hydrogen,
RX4 and RX5 are each a C12 heteroaromatic ring (dibenzofuran).
C-65 reads on Applicant’s compound N represented by Formula (1) and Formula b (shown below),
PNG
media_image5.png
209
121
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
123
99
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
258
217
media_image8.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 b wherein,
Ar5 is a C10 aryl group (naphthalene),
Ar6 is a C6 aryl group (benzene),
Ar5 and Ar6 are bonded together to form a carbazole.
Per Claim 16, the co-host system comprising Modified C-64 and C-65 reads on Applicant’s limitation since RX4 and RX5 are each a C12 heteroaromatic ring (dibenzofuran) in Modified C-64.
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 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