DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 09/02/26.
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 objection to the Specification as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/03/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/03/26 is herein withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
The rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) in view of Hyun et al. (KR 10-2020-0100972) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/03/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) in view of Hyun et al. (KR 10-2020-0100972) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 06/03/26 is NOT withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
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 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) in view of Hyun et al. (KR 10-2020-0100972).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication KR 10-2020-0100972 (herein referred to as “Hyun et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Lee et al. discloses a host material composition comprising a plurality of host materials (“at least two compounds”) comprising the light-emitting layer (interposed between a pair of electrodes) of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device; one host material is of formula I and another host material is of formula II ([5], [29]-[30], [146]). The host composition further comprises “an amine-based compound” ([149]). Lee et al. discloses the following embodiment for the host material of formula II:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 27) such that L = unsubstituted C10 arylene (naphthylene), Ar1-2 = unsubstituted C6 or C10 aryl (phenyl or naphthyl), n = 0, and Ar3 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-1; corresponds to compound on page 56 of Claim 6. However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the presence of a further compound of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2.
Hyun et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
164
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 23 of Hyun et al.) such that n’ = 0, A’2 = hydrogen, and A1’ = Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-a (with R’1 = Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-b (with L’ = phenylene and Ar’2-3 = biphenyl or 9,9’-dimethylfluorenyl)) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 2 and 2-3. Hyun et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material (for use in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device) and/or as hole-transporting, electron-transporting, and/or electron-blocking material, the use of which results in a device with improved light-emitting and quantum efficiencies ([0001], [0194]). It would have been obvious to incorporate 67 as disclosed by Hyun et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer (as further host material) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Lee et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hyun et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved light-emitting and quantum efficiencies.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2020/080693 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022/131757 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication KR 10-2020-0100972 (herein referred to as “Hyun et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2023/0363266 A1 as the English equivalent of foreign document publication WO 2022/131757 A1 (herein referred to as “Kim et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
Lee et al. discloses a host material composition comprising a plurality of host materials (“at least two compounds”) comprising the light-emitting layer (interposed between a pair of electrodes) of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device; one host material is of formula I and another host material is of formula II ([5], [29]-[30], [146]). The host composition further comprises “an amine-based compound” ([149]). Lee et al. discloses the following embodiment for the host material of formula II:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 27) such that L = unsubstituted C10 arylene (naphthylene), Ar1-2 = unsubstituted C6 or C10 aryl (phenyl or naphthyl), n = 0, and Ar3 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1-1; corresponds to compound on page 56 of Claim 6. However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the presence of a further compound of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2.
Kim et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
336
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 41) such that n’ = 0, A’2 = hydrogen, and A1’ = Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-a (with R’1 = Ar’1 = unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl)), and A’2 = Applicant’s Chemical Formula 2-b (with L’ = single bond and Ar’2-3 = biphenyl or substituted phenyl) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 2 and 2-2; corresponds to compound on pages 116 of Claim 11. Hyun et al. discloses its inventive compounds as host material (for use in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device) as well as material for hole injection, hole transport, light emission, electron transport, and electron injection, the use of which results in a device with improved efficiency and lifetime characteristics ([0019], [0084]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Kim et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer (as further host material) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Lee et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kim et al. which teaches that the use of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with improved efficiency and lifetime characteristics.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant has argued for unexpected results (pages 207-208) as shown on Tables 1-3 of the present Specification. However, the Office finds the data unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Notice the rather broad scope of Formulae 1-1 and 2 as recited in Claim 1, each of which recites chemical groups which can be “substituted”; substituents remain undefined and thus can include a nearly infinite number and kind of chemical groups, resulting in the production of compounds and thus devices with properties which cannot be reasonably extrapolated from the Applicant’s data. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the relative ratios of compounds of Formula 1-1 to Formula 2 used in the Examples are highly limited (i.e., only a weight ratio of 1:1 has been used).
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 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