DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/21/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 2 and 3 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 Non-Final Rejection filed 02/27/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1 and 4-11 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 Non-Final Rejection filed 02/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/27/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1, 4, and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/27/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) in view of Jun et al. (WO 2018/016742 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/27/26 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) in view of Jun et al. (WO 2018/016742 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2022/0123233 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2020/080693 A1 (herein referred to as “Lee et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
The Office has further relied on national phase publication US 2018/0337348 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2018/016742 A1 (herein referred to as “Jung et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Regarding Claims 1 and 4-10, Lee et al. discloses a host material composition comprising the light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light emitting device) comprising a plurality of host materials comprising at least two compounds, including a first host material of formula 1 and second host material of formula 2 (Abstract; [0006], [0069]); the composition may further comprise additional materials ([0028]). An embodiment for the first material is disclosed:
PNG
media_image1.png
348
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 12) such that A’ = unsubstituted naphthalene ring, L’1-2 = single bond, L’3 = unsubstituted C6 arylene (phenylene), and Ar’1-2 = substituted or unsubstituted C6 aryl (substituted or unsubstituted phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 2 and 2-2; alternatively, L’1 = unsubstituted C6 arylene (phenylene) and Ar’1 = unsubstituted C10 aryl (naphthyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 2 and 2-2. Lee et al. discloses that the organic EL device comprises the following layers: anode, hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, light-emitting layer, electron-transporting layer, electron-injecting layer, and cathode; its inventive composition comprises the light-emitting layer ([0074]-[0075]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant Chemical Formula 1 as recited in the claim.
Jung et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 15) such that Ar1-2 = unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl), L = single bond, and Ar3 = unsubstituted C14 aryl (phenanthryl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1; equivalent to compound as recited on page 22 of Claim 6. Jung et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material in the light-emitting layer, the use of which results in a device with improved efficiency and low driving voltage ([0018]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Jung et al. (above) into the host material composition as disclosed by Lee et al. (as additional host material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Jung et al., which discloses a viable host material in an identical field of invention, the use of which results in a device with improved efficiency and low driving voltage.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee et al. discloses other embodiments for the first host material, including:
PNG
media_image3.png
336
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 12). Lee et al. discloses that its inventive compounds are encompassed by formula 1, wherein X1 = NR3 with R3 =
PNG
media_image4.png
108
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0010]) where Ar1-2 = independently substituted or unsubstituted C6-30 arylene such as phenyl and biphenyl ([0040]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2 as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the first host material as disclosed by Lee et al. (above) to produce the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
186
190
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(equivalent to compound as recited on page 142 in Claim 11 by the Applicant). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves the exchange of one group (phenyl) for a functional equivalent (biphenyl) selected from a highly finite list as disclosed by Lee et al; additional motivation exists, including the fact that the modification merely involves the homologous extension of the phenyl group (to biphenyl), producing a compound that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the modification predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments on pages 176-182 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art in view of the new amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above. Furthermore, notice that Lee et al. discloses that the host material comprises a plurality of materials ([0028]); the inventive compound of Jung et al. can be incorporated into such a host material composition (as additional host material or as host material corresponding to Lee et al.’s formula 2).
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights