DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note that this application has been assigned to a different examiner since the mailing date of the previous office action.
This office action is responsive to the amendment received August 12, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 were amended. Claims 1-8 are pending.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of the specification amendment received August 12, 2026.
The objection to claim 6 is withdrawn in light of the claim amendment received August 12, 2026.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the last office action (mailed 5/14/2026) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment.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.
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”) as further evidenced by Rostovtsev (WO 2011/019360 A1).
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]).
Per claim 1, Lee teaches compound 1-75 (representing Chemical Formula 1, ¶ [0098]), which is identical to instant compound “C-87” of instant claim 7:
PNG
media_image1.png
417
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-75 reads on all of the limitations of instant 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.
With respect to instant claim 1 instant Formula 1 compounds, Lee teaches the following formula 2 (see par. 102-103):
PNG
media_image2.png
204
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 17 of WO document).
The formula is defines Ar groups to include aryl groups of C6 to C60 (see par. 59). L groups may be single bond or C6-C60 arylene (see par. 61). Aryl groups within the recited C6 to C60 range include phenyl, biphenyl, naphthyl (see par. 60), and chrysene among others. (Chrysene group is evidenced as an aryl group in WO 2011/019360 A1, abstract). When -L4-Ar4 is selected as single bond for L4 and chrysene (C18) as Ar4, -L5-Ar5 as biphenyl, and -L6-Ar6 as biphenyl, the Lee compound of Formula 2 is the same as specific instant compound H-31 or H-36 of instant Formula 1 as shown in dependent claim 6.
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 the above discussed specific Formula 2 compound(s), 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 Formula 1 and 2 as discussed above, 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]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce
additional devices comprising compounds the formula 1 and 2 compounds 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).
Per claim 2, the plurality of host materials of Lee comprising compounds of formula 1 and 2 as discussed above reads on all of the limitations in that the substituents are not required as per claim 1.
Per claim 3, an aryl chrysene group is of shown formula 1-2. (Chrysene group is evidenced as an aryl group in WO 2011/019360 A1, abstract).
Per claim 4, above discussed Lee compound 1-75 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.
Per claim 5, above discussed Lee compound 1-75 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.
Per claim 7, above discussed Lee compound 1-75 is identical to compound C-87.
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]).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Lee teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
271
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 17 of WO document).
The formula is defined to include Ar groups that include aryl groups of C6 to C60 (see par. 59). L groups may be single bond or C6-C60 arylene (see par. 61). Aryl groups within the recited C6 to C60 range include phenyl, biphenyl, naphthyl (see par. 60), and chrysene among others. (Chrysene group is evidenced as an aryl group in WO 2011/019360 A1, abstract.) When L4-Ar4 is selected as single bond for L4 and chrysene (C18) as Ar4, L5-Ar5 is biphenyl, and L6-Ar6 is biphenyl the Lee compound of Formula 2 is the same as specific instant compound H-31 or H-36 of instant Formula 1.
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant inventon to prepare the material of the reference, choosing as the compounds, those as described above, wherein the resultant compounds would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device including a combination of compounds as taught by Lee with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the claims were amended, the office submits Lee continues to render obvious a combination of host compounds the same as recited. It is noted that Lee is not limited to only Formula 2 compounds with phenanthrene groups as aryl groups of up to 60 carbon atoms are recited for the Ar groups (see par. 59).
Applicant argues on page 89 of the remarks that Lee reads on a genus that “includes a nearly infinite number of possible compounds”. In response, per MPEP 2123, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Lee reference does not teach away from or discourage compounds having groups the same as within claimed compounds. It is noted that applicant also claims a large number of possible first and second host compounds and many combinations of the large number of possible first and second host compounds. There is no showing of unexpected or superior results for the combination of claimed compounds that is commensurate in scope with the large number of compounds and combinations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Howard US 2011/0147718 A1 teaches monoamine compounds including a chrysene group (par. 82-93).
Kim US 2009/0078317 A1 evidences chrysene as a C6-C60 aryl group (see par. 79).
Yabunouchi US 2008/0108839 A1 evidences chrysene as a 5 to 40 ring carbon atom aryl group (see par. 68).
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 Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights