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 .
Summary of Claims
Claim 1 is amended and claim 25 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 07/06/2026. Claims 1-14, 17-20, and 24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claim 25 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claim 25 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 07/06/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-14, 17-20, and 24 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/06/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/06/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-14, 17-20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2019/0013490 A1) in view of Kim (English translation of WO 2016068458 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) and Zheng (US 2017/0025618 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/06/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 220-226 of the reply dated 07/06/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14, 17-20, and 24 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 220-223, Applicant argues Kim teaches the weight ratio of the first host, the second host, and the third host of its devices is 10-60: 60-10: 5-10 but fails to teach or suggest a compound corresponding to instant Chemical Formula 1. Accordingly, Applicant argues Kim does not teach or suggest the claimed weight ratio of the combined weight of the compounds of instant Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 to the weight of the compound of instant Chemical Formula 3.
Examiner's response –As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Kim is only used to provide motivation to include a third host in the light emitting layer of Cho, and to teach the weight ratio of a first host, a second host, and a third host in the light emitting layer. The benefits of Kim are generically applied to any three differing host materials and are not limited to host materials of specific structures (see Kim, ¶ [7]). That is, Kim is not used to teach compounds of the claimed Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2, or Chemical Formula 3. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 IV.
Given that Kim teaches the benefits of improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan may be obtained when three differing host materials are used in a light-emitting layer when the hosts are provided in a weight ratio of 10 to 60: 60 to 10: 5 to 30 (¶ [43]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a third host in the light emitting layer of Cho, wherein Compound 1-1, Compound 2-4, and the third host are provided in a weight ratio of 10 to 60: 60 to 10: 5 to 30, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan, as taught by Kim.
Accordingly, the cited references teach the claimed light emitting layer comprising a first compound of Chemical Formula 1, a second compound of Chemical Formula 2, and a third compound of Chemical Formula 3, wherein a ratio of the total weight of the first compound and second compound to the weight of the third compound is 85:15 to 75:25. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Applicant's argument –On pages 223-226, Applicant argues the claimed ranged for the weight ratio of the combined weight of the first compound and the second compound to the weight of the third compound (85:15 to 75:25) provides unexpected results. Applicant points to Table 1-1 for support (provided in the Declaration filed 07/06/2026).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues Example 7 (weight ratio of 80:20) shows substantially improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan in comparison to Comparative Example A and Comparative Example B with weight ratios of 90:10 and 70:30, respectively. Applicant similarly argues Example 22 (weight ratio of 80:20) shows improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifetime in comparison to Comparative Example C and Comparative Example D with weight ratios of 70:30 and 90:10, respectively.
Examiner's response --Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Commensurate in Scope
The ranges of the weight ratio of the combined weight of the first compound and the second compound to the weight of the third compound are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 1 requires a weight ratio of 85:15 to 75:25. However, in Table 1-1, the instant devices of Example 7 and 22 include weight ratios of only 80:20. This claimed weight ratio is compared to weight ratios of 90:10 and 70:30 (as shown in Comparative Examples A to D). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).II. Given that the data provided in Table 1-1 fails to include weight ratios of at least 85:15 and 75:25 (i.e., the endpoints of the claimed range), the data of the Declaration is not commensurate in scope with the claims. As there are no results comprising claimed weight ratios of other than 80:20, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present throughout the full scope of the claimed range of 85:15 to 75:25.
As claim 1 claims the broad structures of Chemical Formula 1, Chemical Formula 2, and Chemical Formula 3 but the devices discussed in the Declaration (Examples 7 and 22) only recite two specific first hosts (Compounds 1-1 and 1-4), two specific second hosts (Compounds 2-1 and 2-4), and two specific third hosts (Compounds 3-10 and 3-5), the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, as discussed in the rejection below, Cho teaches Compound 1-1 (which reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 3) and Compound 2-4 (which reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2), and Zheng teaches Compound A2 (which reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1). While these structures are within the scope of the claims, none of these structures are used in the instant devices of Examples 7 and 22. As there are no results comprising the structures of the prior art, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present.
As claim 1 claims a broad device structure including any materials but the devices discussed in Examples 7 and 22 only recite one specific device structure and materials (see instant ¶ [690]-[694]), the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, as discussed below, the prior art teaches different device structure and materials than the instant specification. The structures and materials discussed in the prior art are within the claim scope of the instant application. As there are no results comprising the structures and materials of the prior art, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present.
Comparison with closest prior art
Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. The device examples of the Declaration filed 07/06/2026 comprise different device structure and materials than the devices of Kim.
With respect to the device structure, Kim teaches devices having the following structure and materials (¶ [59]-[63]):
Anode: ITO
Hole injection layer: m-MTDATA
Hole-transport layer: TCTA
Emissive layer: 90% first host, second host, third host (weight ratio 45:45:10) and 10% Ir(ppy)3
Electron transport layer: BCP
Electron injection layer: Alq3
Cathode: LiF/Al
The instant devices of the Declaration include the following (instant ¶ [690]-[694])
Anode: ITO
Hole injection layer: 95 wt% HT-A and 5 wt% PD
Hole transport layer: HT-A
Electron blocking layer: HT-B
Light emitting layer: 92% first host, second host, third host and 8 wt% GD
Electron blocking layer: ET-A
Electron transport layer: ET-B and Liq (1:1)
Electron injection layer: Yb
Cathode: Mg/Ag
As shown above, the devices of the Declaration contain both a different layer structure and different layer materials as compared to the device of Kim. Applicant has not provided an explanation regarding this difference. It is unclear if the device comprising the same structure and materials of Kim that also contain a first compound of Chemical Formula 1, a second compound of Chemical Formula 2, and a third compound of Chemical Formula 3 wherein the ratio of the first compound and second compound to the third compound is 85:15 to 75:25 would obtain the results as discussed by Applicant.
As the devices of Applicant and the devices of Kim comprise different structure and materials, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/06/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14, 17-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2019/0013490 A1) in view of Kim (English translation of WO 2016068458 A1 obtained from Global Dossier) and Zheng (US 2017/0025618 A1).
Regarding claims 1-14, 17-20, and 24, Cho teaches an organic light emitting device having improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifetime by including a first host having a HOMO of 5.6 eV to 6.4 eV and a second host having a HOMO of 5.4 eV to 5.8 eV (abstract; ¶ [0008]-[0009]). Cho teaches examples of such devices including Experimental Example 1 which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer formed of hosts Compound 1-1 and Compound 2-4 and dopant GD-1, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (Table 1 on pg. 47; ¶ [0209]).
Compound 1-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 3 (structure on pg. 33).
1-1:
PNG
media_image2.png
214
285
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image3.png
137
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-1 reads on the claimed Chemical Formulas 3 and 3-4 (claim 20) wherein:
X1 to X3 are each N (claim 12);
Y is O;
L is a single bond (claim 13);
Ar21 is an unsubstituted C18 aryl and Ar22 and Ar23 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) (claims 14 and 18-19);
Ar21 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 4h wherein n2 and n5 are each 0 (claim 17);
R21 is hydrogen; and
f is an integer of 6.
Additionally, Compound 1-1 reads on the 12th claimed compound on pg. 188 of claim 24.
Compound 2-4 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 2 (structure on pg. 43).
2-4:
PNG
media_image4.png
246
331
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image5.png
204
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound 2-4 reads on the claimed Chemical Formulas 2 and 2-1 (claims 1 and 6) wherein:
Ar11 and Ar12 are each an unsubstituted C12 aryl (biphenyl) (claims 7-8);
R11 and R12 are not required to be present (claim 9); and
d and e are each 0 (claim 10).
Additionally, Compound 2-4 reads on the 8th claimed compound of claim 11.
Cho fails to teach a third host compound in the light emitting layer.
Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a light-emitting layer comprising a first host, a second host, and a third host, wherein the three hosts are different materials (¶ [7]). Such a device obtains improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan compared to a device including a light emitting layer to which one or two hosts are applied (¶ [10]). Particularly, the first host, second host, and third host are included in the light-emitting layer in a weight ratio of 10 to 60: 60 to 10: 5 to 30 (¶ [43]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a third host in the light emitting layer, wherein Compound 1-1, Compound 2-4, and the third host are provided in a weight ratio of 10 to 60: 60 to 10: 5 to 30, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan, as taught by Kim.
Cho in view of Kim fail to teach a third host that reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1.
Zheng teaches compounds represented by Formula I and Formula II for use as hosts in organic electroluminescent devices, wherein the compounds provide devices with longer lifetime and improved charge transport properties (abstract; ¶ [0003], [0017], and [0174]). Examples of compounds represented by Formulas I and II include Compound A2, as exemplified in Device 1 (structure on pg. 8; Table D1 on pg. 142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a compound of Zeng’s Formula I and Formula II for the third host, and particularly Compound A2 as exemplified in Device 1, based on the teaching of Zheng. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the device with longer lifetime and improved charge transport properties, as taught by Zheng.
Compound A2 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1.
A2:
PNG
media_image6.png
211
329
media_image6.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image7.png
197
319
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound A2 reads on the claimed Chemical Formulas 1 and 1-5 (claims 1-2) wherein:
A is a benzene ring;
L1 and L2 are each a single bond (claim 3);
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C18 aryl (terphenyl) and Ar2 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl (biphenyl) (claim 4);
R1 to R3 are each hydrogen; and
a is 4, b is 2, and c is 4.
Additionally, Compound A2 reads on the 14th claimed compound of claim 5.
As discussed above, Compound 1-1, Compound 2-4, and the third host are provided in a weight ratio of 10 to 60: 60 to 10: 5 to 30. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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, 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights