DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 15, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed June 15, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed June 15, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 based upon Lee et al. (KR2015-0077220) in view of Yu et al. (US 2012/0273764) as set forth in the last Office action because: the results are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The independent claim does not limit that light emitting material nor the materials used in the other layers in the device besides the light emitting layer. The applicant’s results are not commensurate in scope with the claims as the applicant only shows results for 1 example device and 3 comparative devise where the same dopant is used for all the examples. The applicant has not provided any results when other dopants are used and if similar results as observed. This is same for the other layers of the device. Also the applicant has not shown the observed results between just a single host material and dual host material device. The prior art shows the improve one when the materials are used alone as host materials or as dual host materials. The observed results by the applicant could be the product of selecting compounds that do not work well with each other and the second hosts chosen by the applicant in the comparative examples are not the same as the prior art; therefore, it is unclear if the results observed in the comparative would be the same for the prior art. The applicant only provides results for one isomer of the indolocarbazole compound, while the claims allow for any of the isomers to be used. The applicant’s results are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments of unexpected results are addressed above and are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office points out that the prior art does not need to teach each claimed limitation as long as the combination of references would lead to a device that meets the applicant’s claimed invention and the rejection of Lee in view of Yu (see below) leads to a device that meets the applicant’s claimed invention and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Office points out that the teaching of Yu would direct one of ordinary skill in the art to add the indolocarbazole compound as the second host material to the device of Lee. Yu shows that when you mix an electron transporting host material and a hole transporting host material one can see improve emission properties compared to either host being used by itself. Given the teachings of Yu and that Lee teaches an electron transporting host material, one of ordinary skill would expect that adding the second host material (a hole transporting host, inodolocarbaozle compound) would lead to improve in the emission properties of the device. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR2015-0077220) (hereafter “Lee”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, in view of Yu et al. (US 2012/0273764) (hereafter “Yu”).
Regarding claims 1-13 and 16-20, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (pages 38-40 of the machine translation). Lee teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a phosphorescent dopant (pages 38-40). Lee teaches that the host material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
168
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
240
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
189
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (pages 15-20 of the machine translation). Lee teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in an electronic apparatus (end of page 3 of the machine translation).
Lee does not teach where the light emitting layer comprises a second host material.
Yu teaches an electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer comprising two host materials and a phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs [0132]-[0145]). Yu teaches that the first host material is electron transporting and the second host can be
PNG
media_image4.png
106
183
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image5.png
107
149
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which is host transporting (paragraphs [0132]-[0156]). Yu teaches that adding the second host materials improves the efficiency of the device (paragraphs [0148]-[0161]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee so the light emitting layer comprises a second host material, such as
PNG
media_image4.png
106
183
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image5.png
107
149
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, as taught by Yu. The motivation would have been to improve the efficiency of the device.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR2015-0077220) (hereafter “Lee”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, in view of Yu et al. (US 2012/0273764) (hereafter “Yu” as applied to claims 1-13 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Kwong et al. (US 2008/0261076) (hereafter “Kwong”).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lee teaches that the host material can be a host for a blue, red, or green phosphorescent dopant (end of page 3 of the machine translation).
Lee does not teach a phosphorescent dopant that meets applicant’s claimed formula.
Kwong teaches an electroluminescent device using a red phosphorescent dopant (paragraphs [0177]-[0180]). Kwong teaches that the dopant can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image6.png
98
174
media_image6.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image7.png
146
195
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0177]-[0180]). Kwong teaches that using these dopants leads to devices that emit red light with high efficiency and lifetime (paragraphs [0177]-[0180]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee to the phosphorescent dopant is
PNG
media_image6.png
98
174
media_image6.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image7.png
146
195
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as taught by Kwong. The motivation would have been to make a red emitting device with good efficiency and lifetime.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights