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 .
This office action is responsive to the Amendment and Remarks filed 18 February 2026, wherein claim 5 was canceled. Subsequently, claims 1-4 and 6-20 remain pending and presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Amendment
The objection of claims, as set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the previous office action on the merits, are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the same.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the previous office action on the merits, are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments to the same.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraphs 8 through 21 of the previous office action on the merits, are hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the same.
Applicants have amended the base independent claim 1 to incorporate the limitations thereof canceled claim 5. Subsequently, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over each of Kim et al. and Ahn et al., as set respectively forth in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the previous office action on the merits are hereby withdrawn, are since claim 5 was not included in the aforementioned rejections.
Applicants’ amendment to claim 1 with respect to the substituent L13 in the host compound of formula 2, i.e., the limitation “provided that L13 is not substituted with a silyl group”, has introduced a new consideration as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 in response to each of the objections to the claims as well as the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in paragraphs 2, 3, and 6-21 of the previous office action on the merits, are moot as the aforementioned objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 in response to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over each of Kim et al. and Ahn et al., as set respectively forth in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the previous office action on the merits, are moot as the aforementioned rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 in response to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ahn et al., as set forth in paragraph 27 of the previous office action on the merits, said arguments to the effect that the invention as is now claimed reciting the proviso with respect to the substituent L13 in the host compound of formula 2, i.e., “provided that L13 is not substituted with a silyl group”, is distinguished from the comparable substituent/compound taught therein Ahn et al. has been fully considered, but is not persuasive. As the Examiner mentioned during the telephonic interview of 21 January 2026, and included in the corresponding interview summary thereof, there is no support in the specification as originally filed for the proviso now recited in amended claim 1 that “L13 is not substituted with a silyl group”. The Examiner notes that applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 do not address the alleged support for the invention as is now claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The base independent claim 1 has been amended such that it recites a proviso limitation with respect to the substituent L13 in the host compound of formula 2 contained in the claimed organic light-emitting device, i.e., “provided that L13 is not substituted with a silyl group”. The specification as originally filed does not support the invention as is now claimed:
PNG
media_image1.png
279
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ahn et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,262,632).
The Examples of Ahn et al. (beginning at column 169, line 20) disclose an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing the first electrode and an emission layer there between said first and second electrode, characterized in that said emission layer comprises a host and a phosphorescent dopant.
Ahn et al. disclose a triazine-silicon-containing compound inclusive of the triazine-silicon-containing host compound of the present formula 2, as represented therein by any one of
PNG
media_image2.png
391
433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
460
908
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ahn et al. also discloses a phosphorescent dopant comprising an organometallic compound inclusive of the organometallic compounds of the present formula 3 and formula 5, as respectively represented therein by
PNG
media_image4.png
60
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
427
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(column 50, line 22+), and that the emission layer may also comprise a fluorescent dopant (column 50, line 17).
Although Ahn et la. does not expressly illustrate the organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer characterized by containing a host of the present formula 2 and phosphorescent dopant of the present formulae 3 and/or 5, they are well known in the art, individually as well as in combination, as generally taught therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time the invention was filed to combine the host of the present formula 2 and phosphorescent dopant of the present formulae 3 and/or 5 in the emission layer of the organic light-emitting device, as generally taught therein Ahn et al., with reasonable expectations of achieving, absent object evidence to the contrary, the advantages taught therein, as well as those associated with their combination thereof. As for whether the emission layer of the inventive organic light-emitting device exhibits a photoluminescence spectrum comprising a first peak (Imax) having a maximum intensity and a second peak (I2nd) having a second highest intensity, wherein a rate of change of an intensity of the second peak of the emission layer is greater than an intensity of the second peak, or the transient photoluminescence decay curve, and/or whether the host and the phosphorescent dopant form an exciplex, the Examiner notes that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)].
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
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 Geraldina Visconti whose telephone number is (571)272-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
GERALDINA VISCONTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/GERALDINA VISCONTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights