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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species (A1 – at least one of Ar21 to Ar23 of Formula (2) is Formula (2-1)), in the reply filed on 08/13/2026 is acknowledged.
The amendment of 08/13/2026 has been entered. All the claims are now directed to Species (A1); thus, the requirement of species election is withdrawn.
Disposition of Claims
The amendment of 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are pending.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 2021/0269445 A1, hereafter Kang).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-6, Kang discloses a composition comprising a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2 and used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0010], [0016]).
Kang exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound H-42 as a host, Compound B-135 as a host, and Ir(piq)2acac as a dopant), and a second electrode (Example 12 in [0324] and Table 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound H-42 of Kang has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1) and the specific embodiment H1-634. The Compound B-135 of Kang has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (2) and the specific embodiment H2-131.
The organic electroluminescent device of Kang reads on all the features of claims 1-2 and 4-6.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2021/0269445 A1) as taught by Ossila (a screen shot of the Wayback machine on 05/27/2022 for the Ossila webpage address of https://web.archive.org/web/20220527154223/https://www.ossila.com/products/irppy3, 05/27/2022, hereafter Ossila), Reineke et al. (“White organic light-emitting diodes: Status and perspective”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 2013, vol. 85, page 1245-1293, hereafter Reineke) and Kim et al. (US 2024/0107884 A1, hereafter Kim ‘884).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10-11, Kang discloses a composition comprising a first compound of Formula 1 and a second compound of Formula 2 and used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0010], [0016]).
Kang exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound H-42 as a host, Compound B-135 as a host, and Ir(piq)2acac as a dopant), and a second electrode (Example 12 in [0324] and Table 2).
The Compound H-42 of Kang has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1) and the specific embodiment H1-634. The Compound B-135 of Kang has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (2) and the specific embodiment H2-131.
The light emitting dopant of the device of Kang is not a green emitter; however, Kang does teach that the dopant of the device can be a phosphorescent dopant comprising Ir and bidentate ligands ([0117]-[0121]).
Ir(ppy)3 is a commercially available green phosphorescent dopant having high quantum yield and thermal stability as taught by Ossila (page 1).
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 organic electroluminescent device of Kang by substituting the phosphorescent dopant with Ir(ppy)3 as taught by Kang and Ossila.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a green light emitting device using a commercially available green phosphorescent dopant with high quantum yield and thermal stability based on the teaching of Ossila.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the phosphorescent dopants would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Kang as modified by Ossila comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound H-42 as a host, Compound B-135 as a host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode.
The organic electroluminescent device of Kang as modified by Ossila emits green light not white light.
Reineke discloses white organic electroluminescent devices (Title and Abstract).
Reineke teaches a white organic electroluminescent device can be formed by incorporating red, green, and blue light emitting layers in a device (Fig. 1a and 1f).
Kim ‘884 discloses light emitting layer materials used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0008]-[0010]).
Kim ‘884 teaches materials for a red light emitting layer comprising Compound 1-48, Compound 2-6, and a red phosphorescent dopant Dp-7 (Example 116 in Table 3, [0415]-[0417]).
PNG
media_image2.png
375
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 and the embodiment H2-98.
Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 4.
Kim ‘884 teaches the combination of the light emitting layer materials of Kim ‘884 provide improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime ([0022]).
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 Organic electroluminescent device of Kang as modified by Ossila by incorporating a red light emitting layer comprising Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 as a host and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 as a host, and Compound Dp-7 of Kim ‘884 as a dopant, and a blue light emitting layer, as taught by Reineke and Kim ‘884.
The modification of doing so would have been to provide a white organic electroluminescent device with improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime, as taught by Reineke and Kim ‘884.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Kang as modified by Ossila, Reineke, and Kim ‘884 comprising a first electrode, a red light emitting layer (Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 as a host and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 as a host, and Compound Dp-7 of Kim ‘884 as a dopant), a green light emitting layer (Compound H-42 of Kang as a host, Compound B-135 of Kang as a host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), a blue light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the Compound H-42 of Kang is a first host compound, the Compound B-135 of Kang is a second host compound, and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 is a third host compound.
Regarding claims 12-13, the Organic electroluminescent device of Kang as modified by Ossila, Reineke, and Kim ‘884 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a red light emitting layer (Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 as a host and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 as a host, and Compound Dp-7 of Kim ‘884 as a dopant), a green light emitting layer (Compound H-42 of Kang as a host, Compound B-135 of Kang as a host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), a blue light emitting layer, and a second electrode.
In the third host Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884, the chrysene group is not directly bonded to the central nitrogen atom but via a phenylene group at the position corresponding to L’1 of Formula 3 of Kim ‘884; however, Kim ‘884 does teach the linker L’1 can be a single bond ([0019]). Kim ‘884 exemplifies a compound having a direct bond at the position corresponding to L’1 of Formula 3 and Kim ‘884 and has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment H3-39 ([0089], the first compound on page 575).
PNG
media_image3.png
263
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Modified organic electroluminescent device of Kim ‘884 ‘331 by substituting the Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 with Compound p575-1 of Kim ‘884, as taught by Kim ‘884.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substituent of exemplified compounds of Formula 3 of Kim ‘884 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Kang as modified by Ossila, Reineke, and Kim ‘884 (2) comprising a first electrode, a red light emitting layer (Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 as a host and Compound p575-1 of Kim ‘884 as a host, and Compound Dp-7 of Kim ‘884 as a dopant), a green light emitting layer (Compound H-42 of Kang as a host, Compound B-135 of Kang as a host, and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), a blue light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the Compound H-42 of Kang is a first host compound, the Compound B-135 of Kang is a second host compound, and Compound p575-1 of Kim ‘884 is a third host compound.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2014/0117331 A1, hereafter Kim ‘331).
Regarding claims 7-9, Kim ‘331 discloses a compound of Formula 1 used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0009]-[0010], [0012]). Kim ‘331 teaches Formula 1A-1 which is more detailed structure of the Formula 1 ([0027]). Kim ‘331 exemplifies Compound 16 ([0059]).
PNG
media_image4.png
289
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 16 of Kim ‘331 has similar structure as Applicant’s embodiment H1-481 of claim 8. the only difference is that the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R9 is required to be a diphenyl amine group; however, Kim ‘331 does teach that the substituent at the position corresponding to R9 of Formula 1A-1 can be a -N(Q1)(Q2) group, wherein Q1 and Q2 can be each an aryl group ([0011]). Kim ‘331 exemplifies a diphenyl amine group as the substituent N(Q1)(Q2) (see examples in [0059] including at least the diphenyl amine group of Compound 52; and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
311
543
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Compounds 16 of Kim ‘331 by substituting the phenyl group at the position corresponding to R9 of Formula 1A-1 with a diphenyl amine group, as taught by Kim ‘331.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substituent of exemplified substituents would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image6.png
264
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Kim ‘331 which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 3 and embodiment H1-481, meeting all the limitations of claims 7-8.
Kim ‘331 does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Modified compound of Kim ‘331; however, Kim ‘331 does teach that the compound of Kim ‘331 can be used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0012]).
Kim ‘331 teaches the structure of an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (the compound of Kim ‘331 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode (Example 3 in [0316] and Table 1).
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 Modified compound of Kim ‘331 by incorporating it as a host into the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device, as taught by Kim ‘331.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the hosts of Kim ‘331 in the device of Kim ‘331 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device of Kim ‘331 comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (the Modified compound of Kim ‘331 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claim 9.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2014/0117331 A1) as applied to claims 7-9 above, further in view of Reineke et al. (“White organic light-emitting diodes: Status and perspective”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 2013, vol. 85, page 1245-1293, hereafter Reineke) and Kim et al. (US 2024/0107884 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10-11, the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Kim ‘331 reads on all the features of claim 7 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer (the Modified compound of Kim ‘331 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), and a second electrode.
The organic electroluminescent device of Kang emits green light not white light.
Reineke discloses white organic electroluminescent devices (Title and Abstract).
Reineke teaches a white organic electroluminescent device can be formed by incorporating red, green, and blue light emitting layers in a device (Fig. 1a and 1f).
Kim ‘884 discloses light emitting layer materials used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0008]-[0010]).
Kim ‘884 teaches materials for a red light emitting layer comprising Compound 1-48, Compound 2-6, and a red phosphorescent dopant Dp-7 (Example 116 in Table 3, [0415]-[0417]).
PNG
media_image2.png
375
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 and the embodiment H2-98.
Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 4.
Kim ‘884 teaches the combination of the light emitting layer materials of Kim ‘884 provide improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime ([0022]).
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 Modified organic electroluminescent device of Kim ‘331 by incorporating a red light emitting layer comprising Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 as a host and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 as a host, and Compound Dp-7 of Kim ‘884 as a dopant, and a blue light emitting layer, as taught by Reineke and Kim ‘884.
The modification of doing so would have been to provide a white organic electroluminescent device with improved efficiency, low driving voltage, and improved lifetime, as taught by Reineke and Kim ‘884.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Kim ‘331 as modified by Reineke and Kim ‘884 comprising a first electrode, a red light emitting layer (Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 as a host and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 as a host, and Compound Dp-7 of Kim ‘884 as a dopant), a green light emitting layer (the Modified compound of Kim ‘331 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), a blue light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the Modified compound of Kim ‘331 is a first host compound, the Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 is a second host compound, and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 is a third host compound.
Regarding claims 12-13, the Organic electroluminescent device of Kim ‘331 as modified by Reineke and Kim ‘884 reads on all the features comprising a first electrode, a red light emitting layer (Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 as a host and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 as a host, and Compound Dp-7 of Kim ‘884 as a dopant), a green light emitting layer (the Modified compound of Kim ‘331 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), a blue light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the Modified compound of Kim ‘331 is a first host compound, the Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 is a second host compound, and Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 is a third host compound.
In the third host Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884, the chrysene group is not directly bonded to the central nitrogen atom but via a phenylene group at the position corresponding to L’1 of Formula 3 of Kim ‘884; however, Kim ‘884 does teach the linker L’1 can be a single bond ([0019]). Kim ‘884 exemplifies a compound having a direct bond at the position corresponding to L’1 of Formula 3 of Kim ‘884 ([0089], the first compound on page 575, hereafter Compound p575-1) which has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment H3-39
PNG
media_image3.png
263
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Modified organic electroluminescent device of Kim ‘331 by substituting the Compound 2-6 of Kim ‘884 with Compound p575-1 of Kim ‘884, as taught by Kim ‘884.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substituent of exemplified compounds of Formula 3 of Kim ‘884 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Kim ‘331 as modified by Reineke and Kim ‘884 (2) comprising a first electrode, a red light emitting layer (Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 as a host and Compound p575-1 of Kim ‘884 as a host, and Compound Dp-7 of Kim ‘884 as a dopant), a green light emitting layer (the Modified compound of Kim ‘331 as a host and Ir(ppy)3 as a dopant), a blue light emitting layer, and a second electrode, wherein the Modified compound of Kim ‘331 is a first host compound, the Compound 1-48 of Kim ‘884 is a second host compound, and Compound 575-1 of Kim ‘884 is a third host compound.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 12, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/449,386 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘386). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9, Application ‘386 discloses a plurality of host materials comprising a first host of Formula 1 and a second host of Compound H2-1 (claim 12).
PNG
media_image7.png
191
165
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound H2-1 of Application ‘386 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 and the specific embodiment H2-37 of the instant claims.
The plurality of host materials does not comprise a specific first host compound; however, Application ‘386 does teach Compound C-91 as the first host compound (claim 8).
PNG
media_image8.png
187
194
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Compound C-91 of Application ‘386 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims.
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 plurality of host materials comprising a second host of Compound H2-1 by incorporating a first host Compound C-91, as taught by Application ‘386.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substituent of the first hosts of Formula 1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified plurality of host materials of Application ‘386 comprising Compound C-91 as a first host and Compound H2-1 as a second host, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 5, and 7.
Application ‘386 dose not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Modified plurality of host materials of Application ‘386; however, Application ‘386 does teach that the plurality of host materials can be incorporated in an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, at least one light emitting layer, and a cathode (claim 14).
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 Modified plurality of host materials by incorporating it into at least one light emitting layer, as taught by Application ‘386.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substituent would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device of Application ‘386 comprising an anode, at least one light emitting layer containing the Modified plurality of host materials of Application ‘386, and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 6 and 9.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-8 and 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/331,498 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘498). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-13, Application ‘498 discloses a plurality of host materials comprising a first host of Formula 1 and a second host of Formula 2 and a third host Compound H3-1 (claim 13), wherein at least one of the first and the second material comprises deuterium.
PNG
media_image9.png
250
246
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The Compound H3-1 of Application ‘498 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and the embodiment H1-1 of the instant claims.
The plurality of host materials of Application ‘498 does not comprise a specific first host and a second host; however, Application ‘498 does teach Compound H2-1 and H2-51 as the second host (claim 8).
PNG
media_image10.png
296
287
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
314
186
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The Compounds H2-1 and H2-51 have identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 2 of the instant claims, and the Compound H2-51 has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment H2-1.
Application ‘498 further teaches Compound H1-1 and H1-152 as the first host material (claim 7).
PNG
media_image12.png
347
368
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
205
172
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The Compounds H1-1 and H1-152 have identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 4 of the instant claims, and the Compound H1-152 has identical structure as Applicant’s embodiment H3-5.
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 plurality of host materials comprising Compound H3-1 of Application ‘498 by incorporating Compound H2-1 (or H2-51), and H1-152 (or H1-1), as taught by Application ‘498.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substituent of the exemplified first, second, and third hosts in the plurality of host materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified plurality of host materials of Application ‘498 (1) comprising Compound H3-1, Compound H2-1, and Compound H1-152, Modified plurality of host materials of Application ‘498 (2) comprising Compound H3-1, Compound H2-51, and Compound H1-1, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 10-13.
Application ‘498 dose not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device comprising the Modified plurality of host materials of Application ‘498; however, Application ‘498 does teach that the plurality of host materials can be incorporated in an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, at least one light emitting layer, and a cathode (claim 14).
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 Modified plurality of host materials by incorporating it into at least one light emitting layer, as taught by Application ‘498.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substituent would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device of Application ‘498 comprising an anode, at least one light emitting layer containing the Modified plurality of host materials of Application ‘498, and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claims 6 and 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
