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 Arguments/Amendments
The amendment of 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3–18 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 27 of the reply filed on 03/12/2026) regarding the rejection of Claims 9 under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) as being of improper dependent form set forth in the Office Action of 12/12/2025 has been fully considered and has been withdrawn since Applicant has amended claim 9 to recite hydrogen as an option for Ar1 and Ar2.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 28 of the reply filed on 03/12/2026) regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–18 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0280796 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 12/12/2025 have been fully considered and have been withdrawn since independent claims 1 has been amended to narrow the scope wherein the compound must be represented by Chemical Formula 1B or Chemical Formula 1D, rendering the rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments (see page 29 of the reply filed on 03/12/2026) regarding the rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0131534 A1) set forth in the Office Action of 12/12/2025 has been fully considered and has been withdrawn since independent claims 1 has been amended to narrow the scope wherein the compound must be represented by Chemical Formula 1B or Chemical Formula 1D, rendering the rejections moot.
A new round of rejections has been necessitated by amendment.
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 1, 3–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0280796 A1) in view of Suh et al. (US 2021/0351360 A1, hereafter “Suh”).
Regarding Claim 1, 3–18, Kim teaches Compound C-195 [pg. 35] which nearly reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1B.
However, the benzofurocarbazole in Compound C-195 (Benzofuro[3,2-b]carbazole, hereafter “Moiety B”) must be modified so that the oxygen and nitrogen are on the same side of the molecule (Benzofuro[2,3-a]carbazole, hereafter “Moiety A”) to read on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1B.
PNG
media_image1.png
170
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
196
295
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim further teaches Compound C-149 wherein the nitrogen and oxygen of the benzofurocarbazole are on the same side of the molecule (Moiety A), therefore this benzofurocarbazole isomer is within the scope of Kim’s teachings.
PNG
media_image3.png
323
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
298
253
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Suh teaches Compound 4 and Compound 7 (shown below), which comprise a benzofurocarbazole and a triazine within their structures, like Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1B. The only difference between Compound 4 and Compound 7 is that Compound 4 comprises Moiety A (oxygen and nitrogen on the same side) while Compound 7 comprises Moiety B (oxygen and nitrogen on opposite sides). Suh teaches that Compound 4 has a reduced voltage and higher efficiency in comparison to Compound 7 [Table1]. Therefore, when a compound comprising Moiety A (oxygen and nitrogen on the same side) instead of Moiety B (oxygen and nitrogen on opposite sides) is used as the host material in an organic light emitting device, the voltage is reduced and the efficiency is increased.
PNG
media_image5.png
309
307
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
347
296
media_image6.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 Compound C-195 by changing the benzofurocarbazole from Moiety B to Moiety A, based on the teaching of Suh. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the voltage and increase the efficiency of an organic light emitting device, as taught by Suh.
Additionally, Kim’s Formula 1 does not specify the bonding of ring A and ring B. Therefore, a structural isomer of Compound C-195 may be made wherein the 1 position of the benzofurocarbazole in Moiety A is bonded (shown below). Kim further teaches organic electroluminescent device comprising host materials of present disclosure result in lower driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and long lifespan [0142].
PNG
media_image7.png
227
297
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
252
238
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Given the general formula and teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound C-195 wherein position 1 is bonded. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1/the positional isomers of the compound represented by Compound C-195 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as the host in the light-emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possess the properties taught by Kim. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Per Claim 1, the resulting compound, hereafter “Modified C-195”, reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1B (shown below),
PNG
media_image9.png
359
438
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
343
366
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein:
X1 is O,
n1 is 1,
Z1 to Z3 are each CRe, while Z4 to Z6 are each N,
Re and R1 to R4 are each hydrogen,
m6 and m8 are each 4, m7’ is 3, m9’ is 2,
Ar1 is hydrogen, Ar2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group,
L1 and L2 are each a single bond.
Per Claim 3, Modified C-195 is represented by Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1B-II (shown below), wherein Ar1, Ar2, L1, L2, X1, X2, m6, m7’, m8, m9’, Z1 to Z6, n1, and R1 to R4 are the same as defined above.
PNG
media_image11.png
279
316
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
343
366
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 4, n1 is 1 in Modified C-195.
Per Claim 5, Modified C-195 is represented by Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1B-IIa (shown below), wherein Ar1, Ar2, L1, L2, X1, X2, m6, m7’, m8, m9’, Z1 to Z6, n1, and R1 to R4 are the same as defined above
PNG
media_image12.png
289
340
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
343
366
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 6, X1 is O in Modified C-195. X2 is not present as it is not represented in Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1B.
Per Claim 7, Ar1 is hydrogen while Ar2 is an unsubstituted phenyl group in Modified C-195.
Per Claim 8, *-L1Ar1 is hydrogen while *-L2-Ar2 is represented by
PNG
media_image13.png
38
57
media_image13.png
Greyscale
in Modified C-195.
Per Claim 9, Modified C-195 is identical to Applicant’s Compound 1-37 (shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
200
192
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
343
366
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 10, Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent material comprising at least one compound from C-1 to C-202 as the first host material represented by Formula 1 and at least one compound from H1 to H84 as the second host material represented by Formula 11 [0099]. Modified C-195 is a derivative of C-195 and is represented by Formula 1. H-1 [pg. 40] (shown below) is a compound taught by Kim which is represented by formula 11. Kim further teaches organic electroluminescent device comprising host materials of present disclosure result in lower driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and long lifespan [0142].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to H-1 as a second host material with Modified C-195, because it would have been choosing between H-1 to H-84, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising H-1 having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
H-1 reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image15.png
253
459
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
274
293
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar3 and Ar4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl),
L3 and L4 are each a single bond,
n2 is 0,
R6–R15 are each a hydrogen atom, R16 is not present since n2 is 0,
m3 is 3, m4 is 3, and m5 is not present since n2 is 0.
An organic electroluminescent material comprising Compound 1 and H-1 (hereafter called Composition 1) reads on Applicant’s limitation.
Per Claim 11, Composition 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation since H-1 reads on Chemical Formula 2-8 (shown below), and *L3-Ar3 and *L4-Ar4 are each represented by C-1, a substituent of Group II.
PNG
media_image17.png
269
321
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
81
41
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent material comprising at least one compound from C-1 to C-202 as the first host material represented by Formula 1 and at least one compound from H1 to H84 as the second host material represented by Formula 11 [0099]. Modified C-195 is a derivative of C-195 and is represented by Formula 1. H-71 [pg. 54] (shown below) is a compound taught by Kim which is represented by formula 11. Kim further teaches organic electroluminescent device comprising host materials of present disclosure result in lower driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and long lifespan [0142].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to H-71 as a second host material with Modified C-195, because it would have been choosing between H-1 to H-84, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the light emitting layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising H-71 having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
H-71 reads on Applicant’s Chemical Formula 3C (shown below),
PNG
media_image19.png
281
242
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
197
270
media_image20.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ld3 and Ld4 are each a single bond,
L5 and L6 are each a single bond,
R17–R24, Rf3, and Rf4 are each a hydrogen atom,
Ar5 and Ar6 are each an unsubstituted phenyl group.
Regarding Claims 13, 14, 16 and 17, Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device according to one embodiment may comprise a first electrode; a second electrode; and at least one organic layer(s) between the first and second electrodes. The organic layer may include a light-emitting layer, and the light-emitting layer may include an organic electroluminescent compound represented by formula 1 (Claims 13 and 14), or a plurality of host materials comprising at least one first host material(s) represented by formula 1 and at least one second host material(s) represented by formula 11 (Claims 16 and 17) [0098]. Kim further teaches organic electroluminescent device comprising host materials of present disclosure result in lower driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and long lifespan [0142].
Per Claim 13 and 14, However, Kim does not teach an exemplified organic electroluminescent device comprising C-195 as a host material.
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 produce an organic electroluminescent device comprising with Modified C-195 as a host material, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a device with low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Kim.
The organic electroluminescent device comprising Modified C-195 reads on Applicant’s limitations of Claim 13 and 14.
Per Claim 16 and 17, However, Kim does not teach an exemplified organic electroluminescent device comprising C-195 and H-1 as host materials.
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 produce an organic electroluminescent device comprising with Modified C-195 and H-1 as host materials, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a device with low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Kim.
The organic electroluminescent device comprising Modified C-195 and H-1 reads on Applicant’s limitations of Claim 16 and 17.
Regarding Claim 15 and 18, Kim teaches that their disclosure can provide display devices such as smartphones, tablets, notebooks, PCs, TVs, or display devices for vehicles, or lighting devices such as outdoor or indoor lighting, by using an organic electroluminescent device [0122].
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