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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/5/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 5-16 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of applicant's amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (US2018/0053901) is withdrawn in view of applicant's amendment.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. The previous rejection of the pending claims over Yoshida et al. (US2018/0053901) has been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xing et al. (CN110272421). The machine translation is relied upon for the rejection purposes.
Regarding claims 1 and 2 ,Xing discloses the following compounds (ET 22-25) that reads on the claimed formula (1), where both Y2 and Y2 represented by Formula A-1-1. See paragraph 87.
PNG
media_image1.png
229
1029
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 10-12, Xing discloses an organic light-emitting diode includes a first electrode and a second electrode located on a substrate, and an organic material located between the electrodes. The space between the first electrode and the second electrode includes a hole transport layer, a light-emitting layer, and an electron transport layer., wherein and the organic material layers comprise the compound of claim 1 (para 0069 and 87).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7-9, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US20140231769) in view of Xing et al. (CN110272421)
Regarding claims 6 and 10-12, Nishimura an organic electroluminescence device includes: a cathode; an anode; and an organic layer having one or more layers and provided between the anode and the cathode, in which the organic layer includes an emitting layer, and the emitting layer includes a first host material, a second host material and a phosphorescent dopant material. Nishimura does not disclose the claimed formula 1. Xing discloses Xing discloses the following compounds (ET 22-25) that reads on the claimed formula (1), where both Y2 and Y2 represented by Formula A-1-1. See paragraph 87. Xing discloses the compounds ET 2—25 can used as electron transport hosts but that hosts in the emitting layer (phosphorescent host materials) are often those with single-carrier transport capabilities, such as hole-type transport hosts and electron-type transport hosts (para 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the compounds taught by Xing as the first host in the emitting layer of Nishimura, with a reasonable expectation of producing an organic light emitting device with achieve high exciton mobility in luminescent materials, thus improving luminous efficiency (para 0049). Simple substitution of one known host material for another would achieve the predictable result. Moreover, case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). Obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Nishimura discloses the organic material layer further comprising the following compounds that reads on the claimed formula (2). See pages 170, 172, 173, and 175.
PNG
media_image2.png
266
235
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
293
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
283
233
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
228
239
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
300
196
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
247
219
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura discloses the organic light emitting device, wherein Rc and Rd are hydrogen (para 0169-173).
Regarding claim 13, Nishimura discloses the second host material is a compound represented by a formula (4) (abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Nishimura discloses a weight ratio of the first host and the second host is 1:10 to 10:1 (para 0258-259).
Regarding claim 15, Nishimura discloses a method for manufacturing an organic light emitting device, the method comprising the steps of preparing a substrate; forming a first electrode on the substrate; forming one or more organic material layers on the first electrode; and forming a second electrode on the organic material layer, wherein the step of forming the organic material layer comprises a step of forming one or more organic material layers using the organic material layer composition according to claim 13 (para 0204, example 1).
Regarding claim 16, Nishimura discloses the step of forming the organic material layer is forming the organic material layer using a thermal vacuum deposition method by premixing the first host and the second host (para 0254).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The compounds recited in claim 5 are not taught in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8/5/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights