DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 16-23 and 28-30) in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the European Examiner did not require a lack of unity between the original claims 1-15 (corresponding to the present claims 16-30 as set forth in the Preliminary Amendment) in the corresponding PCT application. This is not found persuasive because under 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept ("requirement of unity of invention").
XX. It is noted that the requirement of unity of invention is fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. As outlined in the restriction filed March 12, 2026, the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lee and Lin
3. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
4. Claims 24-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on
applications filed in Europe on May 29, 2020.
6. 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).
7. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded
for the non-English application
Information Disclosure Statement
8. The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 13, 2022, August 7, 2025, and February 11, 2026 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Specification
9. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the compounds labeled 1-1390 depicted in Table 1 are blurry and difficult to discern; and
the structures depicted in Scheme 1 are blurry and difficult to discern; and
the compounds depicted in Table 3 are blurry and difficult to discern; and
the compounds depicted in the latter portion of Table 6 (beginning on pg. 169) are blurry and difficult to discern; and
the compounds depicted in the Product column (beginning on pg. 220) are blurry and difficult to discern
10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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.
12. Claims 18 and 23 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.
13. Regarding claims 18 and 23, the recitiation of “…wherein host material 2
conforms to one of the formulae (2a), (2b) or (2c)…” in claim 18 and “…wherein the
phosphorescent emitter conforms to the formula (Illa)…” in claim 23 (italics for emphasis) renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear whether compounds are required to be identical to formulae (2a), (2b) or (2c) and formula (Illa), respectively, or if compounds are required to be deemed similar enough to formulae (2a), (2b) or (2c) and formula (Illa), respectively.
14. Support for the ambiguity regarding the claim language can be found in the dictionary definition of “conforms” provided by Merriam-Webster (“Conforms”) as an evidentiary reference, wherein conforms can mean: “to be similar or identical.”
15. For the purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as requiring compounds to be deemed similar enough to formulae (2a), (2b) or (2c) and formula (Illa), respectively.
16. The examiner recommends amending claims 18 and 23 to recite “…wherein host material 2 is represented by one of the formulae (2a), (2b) or (2c)…” and "…wherein the phosphorescent emitter is represented by formula (IIIa)…”, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Claims 16-22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 2017/0237017 A1, hereinafter “Parham”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
22. Regarding claims 16 and 28, Parham teaches compounds useful as host materials in organic electroluminescent devices that exhibit high glass transition temperatures and high thermal stability (¶ [0121]), and that can be used to obtain devices with improved lifetimes, efficiency, and driving voltage (¶ [0121]).
23. Parham teaches an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0154]-[0159] comprising:
an anode (ITO, ¶ [0157]); and
a cathode (Al, ¶ [0158]); and
at least one organic layer containing at least one light-emitting layer (emission layer; EML ¶ [0158]); and
the at least one light-emitting layer contains at least one compound of formula (1) (Parham) (see ¶ [0007]-[0021] for the definitions of constituent groups), which corresponds to formula (1) as host material 1 in the instant application (Table 1, Example 6; see compound EG6 below, Table 3, pg 109).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
24. The organic electroluminescent device of Parham, comprising compound EG6 as a host material in the light-emitting layer, reads on all of the limitations of formula (1) per claim 16 wherein:
X are each independently nitrogen atoms; and
Y is C(R)2, e is an integer equal to zero, and f is an integer equal to one; and
R are each independently C1 straight chain alkyl group; and
L is a single bond; and
n and m are each independently integers equal to zero, and thus R* is not required to be present; and
Ar2 and Ar3 are different at each instance; and
Ar2 is an unsubstituted dibenzofuranyl group; and
Ar3 is an unsubstituted aryl group with 6 ring atoms.
25. Parham fails to teach an organic electroluminescent device that contains an additional compound as a second host material that reads on formula (2) per claim 16.
26. Parham does teach, however, that a preferred embodiment of the disclosure includes the use of an additional matrix material (a second host material), and that the additional matrix material can be preferably selected as an indolocarbazole derivative (¶ [0109]), of which formula (2) of claim 16 represents (see below, specifically an indolo[3,2,1-jk]carbazole).
PNG
media_image2.png
405
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
27. Additionally, Parham teaches formulations (mixtures as per claim 28), such as solutions, dispersions, and emulsions, of the compound (host material 1) representing formula (1) (Parham) (¶ [0098]), and further teaches that these formulations can comprise additional materials for organic electroluminescent devices such as phosphorescent dopants and additional matrix materials (host material 2) (¶ [0099]).
28. Parham fails to teach a mixture comprising at least one compound of both formulae (1) and (2) as host materials 1 and 2, respectively, per claim 28.
29. Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0035]) comprising:
an anode (¶ [0036] and ¶ [0182]); and
a cathode (¶ [0037] and ¶ [0182]); and
an organic layer (¶ [0038]) including a light-emitting layer comprising at least
one condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1 (Lee) (¶ [0039]), and more specifically by Formula 1C (Lee) (¶ [0010]), wherein condensed cyclic compounds represented by Formula 1C are useful as host materials in organic electroluminescent devices (¶ [0168]).
30. Lee teaches that compounds represented by Formula 1 (Lee) have excellent electrical characteristics and thermal stability, and that organic electroluminescent devices comprising compounds represented by Formula 1 (Lee) exhibit low driving voltage, high efficiency and brightness, and long lifespan (¶ [0391]).
31. Lee specifically teaches compound 2 (Lee) (¶ [0166], pg. 24, see structure below) as a host material representing Formula 1C (Lee) in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (Table 6, Example 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
495
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
32. Compound 2 (Lee) reads on all of the limitations of Formulae (2) and (3) of the instant application wherein:
q, r, s, and t are all integers equal to zero, and thus R1 is not required to be present; and
a and c are each integers equal to zero, b is an integer equal to one, (A)b is represented by Formula (3), and the sum total of indices a+b+c is equal to one; and
X2 are all C–H; and
Ar is a heteroaryl group which has eighteen ring atoms.
33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include compound 2 (Lee) as a second host material in the light-emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material, based on the teaching of Lee and Parham (¶ [0109]). The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain organic electroluminescent devices that exhibit low driving voltage, high efficiency and brightness, and long lifespan (¶ [0391]), as taught by Lee.
34. Per claim 16, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material and compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material in the light-emitting layer reads on all of the limitations of Formulae (1), (2), and (3) as previously delineated.
35. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include compound 2 (Lee) as a second host material in the formulations (mixtures as per claim 28) of Parham, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material, based on the teaching of Lee and Parham [including an additional matrix material (a second host material), wherein the additional matrix material is selected as an indolocarbazole derivative (¶ [0109])]. The motivation for doing so would have been to include a second host material compound that exhibit excellent electrical characteristics and thermal stability (¶ [0391]), as taught by Lee.
36. Per claim 28, the formulation (mixture) of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material and compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material reads on all of the limitations of Formulae (1), (2), and (3) as previously delineated.
37. Per claim 17, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material and compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material in the light-emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein the symbol Y in host material 1 is C(R)2.
38. Per claim 18, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material and compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material in the light-emitting layer reads on all of the limitations of Formula (2b) wherein:
A, R1, q, r, and s are all the same as previously delineated.
39. Per claim 19, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material and compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material in the light-emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein the symbol X in host material 1 is a nitrogen atom at all three instances.
40. Per claim 20, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material and compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material in the light-emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein the modified device is preferably selected as an organic light-emitting diode, as taught by Parham (¶ [0103]).
41. Per claim 21, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material and compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material in the light-emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein the modified device comprises (Table 1, Example 6):
a hole transport layer (HTL, ¶ [0158]); and
an electron transport layer (ETL, ¶ [0158]); and
a hole blocker layer (HBL, ¶ [0158]).
42. Per claim 22, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material and compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material in the light-emitting layer reads on the limitation wherein the modified device also comprises the phosphorescent emitter compound TEG1 (Parham) in the light-emitting layer (Table 1, Example 6; Table 3, pg. 105; and structure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
276
281
media_image4.png
Greyscale
43. Per claims 29-30, the formulation (mixture) of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material, compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material, compound TEG1 (Parham) as the phosphorescent emitter, and a solvent (¶ [0098]-[0099]) reads on all of the limitations therein.
44. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 2017/0237017 A1, hereinafter “Parham”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0333273 A1, hereinafter “Lee”), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Xia et al. (US 2010/0244004 A1; hereinafter “Xia”).
45. Regarding claim 23, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material, compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material, and compound TEG1 (Parham) as the phosphorescent emitter in the light-emitting layer fails to read on the limitations of Formula (IIIa).
46. Xia teaches heteroleptic iridium (Ir) complexes comprising a pyridyl dibenzo-substituted ligand that are useful light emitting dopant materials in organic electroluminescent devices ([Abstract]).
47. Xia teaches that utilization of the heteroleptic Ir-complexes of Xia provides devices with improved efficiency, lifetime, and manufacturing properties ([Abstract]).
48. Xia teaches that the heteroleptic Ir-complexes are represented by Formula 1 (Xia) (¶ [0016]-[0025]) and specifically discloses the following compound 1 (Xia) (see structure below, ¶ [0067] pg. 9)
PNG
media_image5.png
354
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
49. Compound 1 (Xia) reads on all of the limitations of Formula (IIIa) of the instant application wherein:
n+m equals three, n is equal to one, and m is equal to two; and
X is CR at each instance; and
R is hydrogen at each instance.
50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phosphorescent emitter TEG1 (Parham) with compound 1 (Xia), based on the teaching of Xia. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain organic electroluminescent devices with improved efficiency, lifetime, and manufacturing properties, as taught by Xia ([Abstract]).
51. Per claim 23, the organic electroluminescent device of Parham, modified by Lee, comprising compound EG6 (Parham) as the first host material, compound 2 (Lee) as the second host material, and compound 1 (Xia) as the phosphorescent emitter in the light-emitting layer to reads on all of the limitations of Formula (IIIa) as previously delineated.
Conclusion
52. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandon J. Cooper whose telephone number is (571)272-0005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
53. 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.
54. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at (571) 272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
55. 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.
/B.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights