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 (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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 6 May 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Claims 7-9 and 11-12 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are pending.
The amendment to the specification has been entered. The amendment to the specification has overcome objection to the specification set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The objection to claim 6 set forth in the last Office action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The cancellation of claims 7-9 and 11-12 has rendered moot the rejections of claims 7-9 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The cancellation of claims 7-9 and 11-12 has rendered moot the rejections of claims 7-8 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)(b) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 May 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2016-0000284 A—machine translation relied upon) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “Kondakova”), and Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1) (hereinafter “Iwakuma”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered as well as the rejections of claims 1-4, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2016-0000284 A—machine translation relied upon) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “Kondakova”), Ahn et al. (US 2015/0171346 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn ‘346”), and Ma (US 2018/0138425 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last action but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the compound
PNG
media_image1.png
272
130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of Park does not read on the amended claims.
However, the compound still appear to red on the limitations of the current formula 1. The compound
PNG
media_image1.png
272
130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
meets the current formula 1 where: the instant a is 1; the instant L1 is a single bond; Ar1 is a substituted aryl that is phenyl.
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.
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) 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2016-0000284 A—machine translation relied upon) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “Kondakova”), and Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1) (hereinafter “Iwakuma”).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 10: Park discloses 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 a host material having the structure shown below {p. 21, final 6 lines through p. 22, line 4 and Table 1: Example 4}.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the compound above meets the current formula 1 where: the instant a is 1; the instant L1 is a single bond; Ar1 is a substituted aryl that is phenyl.
Park does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host.
Kondakova teaches that using multiple host materials provides beneficial physical properties such as improved film morphology {paragraph [0209]}.
Iwakuma teaches host materials that can be used for fluorescent light emitting materials in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {(paragraphs [0009] and [0013]: The compounds of the disclosure of Iwakuma have the structure of general formula (1) or (2).), (paragraphs [0056]-[0057]: The compounds of the disclosure are useful as host materials.), (paragraphs [0056] and [0065]: The light emitting material can be fluorescent.)}.
Iwakuma exemplifies the compound shown below {(paragraph [0049]: Compounds having the structure of general formula (1) are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 5-27.), (p. 19 and paragraph [0154], the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
673
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The host materials of Iwakuma can be used to produce organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency and high color purity {paragraphs [0193] and [0201]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Park to have two host materials in the light-emitting layer, the first being host material of Park shown above, and the second being the compound of Iwakuma shown above, based on the teaching of Park, Kondakova, and Iwakuma. The modification would have been The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the use of multiple host materials and the host material of Iwakuma) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Iwakuma’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified host compounds of Iwakuma), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additional host material to improve the film morphology of the light-emitting layer through the addition of a host material known to be used to produce devices with high efficiency and high color purity.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 10-2016-0000284 A—machine translation relied upon) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “Kondakova”), Ahn et al. (US 2015/0171346 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn ‘346”), and Ma (US 2018/0138425 A1) (hereafter “Ma”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, and 10: Park discloses 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 a host material having the structure shown below {p. 21, final 6 lines through p. 22, line 4 and Table 1: Example 4}.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the compound above meets the current formula 1 where: the instant a is 1; the instant L1 is a single bond; Ar1 is a substituted aryl that is phenyl.
Park does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host.
Kondakova teaches that using multiple host materials provides beneficial physical properties such as improved film morphology {paragraph [0209]}.
Ahn ‘346 teaches host materials that can be used as host materials in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {(paragraph [0011]: The compounds of the disclosure have the structure of formula 1 of Ahn ‘346.), (paragraph [0037]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ahn ‘346 can be used as the host material of the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device.)}.
Ahn ‘346 exemplifies the compound shown below as a compound of Ahn ‘346 {(paragraph [0033]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ahn ‘346 are exemplified by the Compounds C-1 through C-134.), (p. 4, Compound C-1)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
211
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The host materials of Lee can be used to produce organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency, low driving voltage, and good durability {paragraph [0010]}.
Ma teaches that the compound shown above is a known host material for a light emitting material in an organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0071]-[0073]: The compound shown above is a known host material for the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device.}.
Ma teaches that the emissive material can be fluorescent {paragraph [0093]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Hatakeyama to have two host materials in the light-emitting layer, the first being host material of Hatakeyama shown above, and the second being the compound of Ahn ‘346 shown above, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama, Kondakova, Ahn ‘346, and Ma. The modification would have been The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the use of multiple host materials and the host material of Ahn ‘346 and Ma) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Ahn ;346’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified host compounds of Ahn ‘346), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additional host material having reduced intermolecular attraction that is known to be used to produce devices with high efficiency and high durability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As described above, Park is a representation of the closest prior art. Additionally, listed below are references that teach similar host materials for organic light emitting devices. However, none of the references teach host materials having the structure of the compounds of the current claim 5. Furthermore, the prior art does not teach or motivate modifying the compounds of Park or the references listed below such that they meet the limitations of the compounds of the current claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shin et al. (KR 20130142969 A—machine translation relied upon) teaches host materials for organic light emitting devices.
Shin et al. (KR 20130142971 A—machine translation relied upon) teaches host materials for organic light emitting devices.
Shin et al. (KR 20130142968 A—machine translation relied upon) teaches host materials for organic light emitting devices.
Park et al. (KR 20140076519 A—machine translation relied upon) teaches host materials for organic light emitting devices.
Kim et al. (KR 20140092440 A—machine translation relied upon) teaches host materials for organic light emitting devices.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights