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 .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on October 22, 2021.
3. 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).
4. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 26, 2022 and September 17, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Specification
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the following chemical structures are blurry and difficult to read, see
compounds H-1 to H-305 on pgs. 19-33; and
compounds C-1 to C-205 on pgs. 33-43.
7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structures for compounds H-6 to H-10 and H16 to H-20 are blurry and difficult to read.
9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-8 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.
12. Claim 1 recites the limitation "in formula 2', Y1, R'1 to R’3, L4, Ar4, and a to d are as defined in claim 2" in the last line of the claim. It would appear that claim 1 is thus dependent on claim 2, yet claim 2 is further dependent upon claim 1. It is unclear how claim 1 can be dependent upon a claim (claim 2) which itself depends upon claim 1. For the purposes of examination, Y1, R'1 to R’3, L4, Ar4, and a to d will be interpreted as described previously in claim 1. Claims 2-8 are also rejected for their dependency upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (WO 2020/130394 A1, English machine translation obtained from WIPO; hereinafter “Lee”).
18. Regarding claims 1-5 and 7-8, Lee teaches an organic electric element with improved driving voltage and light emitting efficiency (¶ [0008]). Lee also teaches the combination of host materials in the light emitting layer of the organic electric element comprising a first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and a second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 (¶ [0009]-[0011]).
19. Per claim 1, Lee teaches compound 1-75 (representing Chemical Formula 1, ¶ [0098]) and compound 2-7 (representing Chemical Formula 2, ¶ [0129]).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
279
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
20. Compound 2-7 reads on all of the limitations of Formula 1 of claim 1 wherein:
ring A is a fused benzo-moiety
PNG
media_image3.png
86
87
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; and
R1 to R3 and R5, R6, and R9 are hydrogen atoms; and
c’ is an integer equal to 5; and
R4 is L1-N(Ar1)(Ar2) where L1 is a single bond, and Ar1 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl group and Ar2 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl group..
21. Compound 1-75 reads on all of the limitations of Formula 2 of claim 1 wherein:
Y1 is a sulfur atom; and
R’1 to R’3 are all hydrogen atoms; and
a is an integer equal to 3, b is an integer equal to 2, c is an integer equal to 4; and
L4 is an unsubstituted 13-membered heteroaryl (dibenzofuranyl); and
d is an integer equal to 1; and
Ar4 is an unsubstituted 18-membered heteroaryl containing nitrogen atoms. .
22. While Lee does generally teach the use of compounds represented by Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 as a plurality of host materials in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (see Table 7, ¶ [0315]-[0318]), Lee fails to disclose a particular embodiment that combines compounds 1-75 and 2-7, specifically, as a plurality of host materials. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine compounds 1-75 and 2-7, because it would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of compounds useful as host materials in the light-emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Lee and possessing the
benefits taught by Lee (ex. improved driving voltage and light emitting efficiency, ¶ [0008]).
23. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce
additional devices comprising compounds 1-75 and 2-7 as a plurality of host
materials having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options
within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success,
absent any indication of unexpected results. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
24. Per claim 2, the plurality of host materials of Lee comprising compounds 1-75 and 2-7 reads on all of the limitations in that the substituents are not required as per claim 1.
25. Per claim 3, the plurality of host materials of Lee comprising compounds 1-75 and 2-7 reads on the limitation wherein:
compound 2-7 is represented by Formula 1-1; and’
R21 to R24 are hydrogen atoms; and
R1 to R6 are the same as previously defined.
26. Per claim 4, the plurality of host materials of Lee comprising compounds 1-75 and 2-7 reads on the limitation wherein:
Compound 1-75 is represented by Formula 2-4; and
Y1, R’1 to R’3, L4, and Ar4 are the same as previously defined.
27. Per claim 5, the plurality of host materials of Lee comprising compounds 1-75 and 2-7 reads on the limitation wherein:
Ar4 of compound 1-75 is represented by Formula 2’-1; and
T1 to T3 are nitrogen atoms; and
Ar5 and Ar6 are phenyl groups.
28. Per claim 7, the plurality of host materials of Lee comprising compounds 1-75 and 2-7 reads on the limitation wherein compound 1-75 is identical to compound C-87.
29. Per claim 8, Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0302]-[0307]) comprising:
an anode (ITO, ¶ [0304]); and
a cathode (aluminum, Al, ¶ [0307]); and
at least one light-emitting layer between the anode and cathode, wherein at least one of the light-emitting layers comprises the plurality of host materials of Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 (¶ [0305]).
30. Regarding claim 6, the plurality of host materials of Lee comprising compounds 1-75 and 2-7 fails to read on the limitation wherein the compound represented by claimed formula 1 (compound 2-7 of Lee) is selected from the list of compounds H-1 to H-105.
PNG
media_image4.png
271
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
279
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
31. Lee does teach, however, that the groups of Ar4 to Ar6 of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 (¶ [0102]-[0109]) may be selected as C6 to C18 aryl groups, including biphenyl and naphthyl (¶ [0106]).
32. Lee also discloses compound 2-1 (¶ [0129]), wherein Ar4 to Ar6 are all biphenyl groups.
PNG
media_image5.png
228
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
33. Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Lee, 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 naphthyl group of compound 2-7 of Lee with a biphenyl group, because Lee teaches Ar4 to Ar6 may suitably be selected as biphenyl. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as a host material in the light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Lee and possess the benefits taught by Lee. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
34. 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 substitute the naphthyl group of compound 2-7 of Lee with biphenyl, because it would have been choosing from a list of groups identified by Lee as suitable for Ar4 to Ar6, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host material in the light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chemical Formula 2 of Lee having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
35. The modified compound 2-7 of Lee is shown below, with the naphthyl group substituted for a biphenyl group.
PNG
media_image6.png
418
515
media_image6.png
Greyscale
36. Per claim 6, the plurality of host materials of Lee comprising compound 1-75 and modified compound 2-7 reads on the limitation wherein modified compound 2-7 is identical to compound H-1.
Conclusion
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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