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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on February 23, 2026.
Claims 1, 7 and 12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 12 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on February 23, 2026, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Application 17/979,252 and 18/488,148 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s statement of common ownership, file February 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon as set forth in the office action filed October 21, 2025.
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed February 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Kim as set forth in the office action filed October 21, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 2 (WO2020045976A1).
As per claims 1 – 6 and 8, Kim 2 teaches:
A plurality of host materials (Abstract: “The present disclosure relates to a plurality of host materials comprising a first host material comprising a compound represented by formula 1, and a second host material comprising a compound represented by formula 2, and an organic electroluminescent device comprising the same.”)
Comprising a first host material comprising a compound represented by the following formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
114
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(In [8], Kim 2 teaches that the second host material is represented by formula 2
PNG
media_image2.png
54
212
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein HAr is a substituted or unsubstituted nitrogen-containing heteroaryl; L2 represents a single bond or a substituted or unsubstituted arylene and Ar2 represents a group represented by Formula (3)
PNG
media_image3.png
118
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein R11 to R18 can be linked to an adjacent substituent to form a ring ([16 – 25]). A specific compound taught by Kim 2 is compound C-122
PNG
media_image4.png
142
108
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which does not contain the extended conjugation on the dibenzofuran. However, the definitions for Formula 3 allow for further condensed rings, and Kim 2 teaches compounds such as compound C-95,
PNG
media_image5.png
126
82
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where there is an extended conjugation on a ring system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound C-122 above with an additional phenyl ring as shown in C-95. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed formula wherein Y represents O; one R1 represents (L1)d-Ar1, wherein L1 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene and Ar1 is a substituted 10-membered heteroaryl containing at least one nitrogen, namely a quinoxalinyl as required by claim 5, wherein the substituents are two unsubstituted C6 aryl groups and R2 and R3 are both hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula 1-2 in claim 3.)
Comprising a second host material comprising a compound represented by the following formula 2
PNG
media_image6.png
256
286
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(In [8], Kim 2 teaches the first host material is represented by formula 1
PNG
media_image7.png
218
316
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. A particular compound within the scope of Formula 1 taught by Kim 2 is compound H-146
PNG
media_image8.png
142
118
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 is -N=; Y1 is -O-; R61 represents an unsubstituted C6 aryl; R62 to R64 are hydrogen; L4 represents an unsubstituted C6 arylene; R65 and R66 both represent a substituted C6 aryl, wherein the substituents are an unsubstituted C6 aryl so that the groups represent an unsubstituted p-biphenyl group as required by claim 6. This compound reads on claimed Formula 2-1 in claim 4. This compound is the same as claimed compound 1H-3 in claim 8.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a multi-component host composition including modified compound C-122 and H-146, resulting in the claimed host composition based on the desire to predictably practice the invention of Kim 2 and based on the totality of the teachings of Kim 2, as Kim 2 teaches that any compound within the scope of Formula 1 can be combined with any compound within the scope of Formula 2.
As per claim 7, Kim 2 teaches that in addition to the quinoxalinyl group shown in the compounds above, the HAr group of Formula 2 may be a triazinyl group, as in compound C-218
PNG
media_image9.png
144
96
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. When the modified compound above is further modified to replace the quinoxalinyl group with a triazinyl group, the resulting compound is the same compound as compound C-68
PNG
media_image10.png
136
98
media_image10.png
Greyscale
in claim 7.
Kim 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of higher luminous efficiency and/or longer lifetime (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 9, Kim 2 teaches:
An organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and at least one light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one light-emitting layer comprises the plurality of host materials ([0178]: “The organic electroluminescent device according to the present disclosure may comprise an anode, a cathode, and at least one light-emitting layer between the anode and cathode, in which the light-emitting layer may comprise a compound represented by Formula 1 and a compound represented by Formula 2.”)
Kim 2 teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Kim 2 as Kim 2 demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 – 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 10 – 12, the closest prior art is considered to be Moon (US20230165142A1). However, Applicant’s statement of common ownership and certified translation of both the Korean priority documents has rendered Moon ineligible as prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on (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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789