DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 5, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment dated March 5, 2026 is entered. Claims 1 and 3 were amended. Claims 4-6 are cancelled claims. Claims 1-3 and 7 are pending.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed March 5, 2026 (signed February 22, 2026) is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims as set forth in the last Office action because:
The additional device example is not commensurate in scope with the breath of claimed compounds and the additional comparative example compounds are not commensurate with what is fairly taught within the prior art. Furthermore, the examples are specifically formed layered devices with specific amounts of compounds and dopants whereas none of the claims are as limited in scope. Claims 1-3 are directed to compositions of two materials not to a device. Dependent claim 7 is directed a device, but is not limited to including a specific dopant compound or to specific amounts or ratios of host materials.
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn WO 2017/030283 A1 or patent family equivalent US 2018/0208837 A1 (citations below are directed to the US publication document).
Ahn discloses host materials for use in an organic electroluminescent device (see abstract). Compounds are according to general formula (1) (see par. 11-19):
PNG
media_image1.png
185
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
X1 may be selected as -N= (see par. 13) and Y1 each may be selected as -O- or -S- (see 14).
Regarding instant formula 1 compounds of instant claim 1 and formula 1-3 of claim 2, Ahn formula (1) X1 may be selected as -N= (see par. 13) and Y1 each may be selected as -O- or -S- (see 14), a R2-R4 substituent group of the Ahn formula (1)(see par. 17, 25, 39-41) may include substituted or unsubstituted di-(C6-C30)arylamino (see par. 25) where (C6-C30)aryl includes groups such as phenyl, biphenyl, and naphthyl among others (see par. 39) per instant L1 as single bond, R5 and R6 as groups such as phenyl, biphenyl, or naphthyl, respectively. Further substituted may include deuterium as the substituent in any of the defined substituted groups (see par. 40). With respect to instant group R1, the Ahn formula (1) R1 may be selected as phenyl (see par. 24 and corresponding group in at least compound C-53 on page 14). Further regarding instant R2 to R4 groups, Ahn teaches R2 to R4 may be hydrogen or deuterium (see par. 17).
Regarding instant formula 3 of instant claim 1 and instant formula 3-1 of instant claim 3, an Ahn formula (1) may more specifically be according to Ahn formula (2) (see par. 23) where X1 is -N= and Y1 is O or S (see par. 13-14), R1 is phenyl (see par. 24) per instant R11, X1 to X3 are N (see par. 30) per instant X-containing group, L1 is single bond (see par. 29) per instant L2 as single bond, Ar1 is aryl such as phenyl per instant R15, and Ar2 is heteroaryl such as dibenzofuran per instant R16 (see par. 31 and specific aryl and heteroaryl groups in par. 39):
PNG
media_image2.png
214
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Further regarding instant R12 to R14 groups, Ahn teaches R2 to R4 may be hydrogen or deuterium (see par. 17). See also other relevant groups shown within compounds of general formula (1) shown in par. 41 per instant formula 1 and 3 and definitions of formulas in par. 12-19, 23-40.
Disclosed Ahn formula (1) materials such as compounds with selected groups according to Ahn formula (1) the same as instant formula 1 and instant formula 3 materials discussed above are taught as suitable as a host material for a light emitting layer (see par. 46). Furthermore, the organic layer of the disclosed device “may comprise at least one organic electroluminescent compound of formula 1” (see par. 44), which includes using more than one of the compounds of Ahn formula (1). While the disclosure of Ahn provides for multiple compounds of formula (1) to be used in combination in a device, Ahn does not explicitly set forth an example embodiment using two compounds of formula (1) (such as a compound the same as an instant formula 1 and as the same as an instant formula 3) in combination as a host material composition in an example device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used two materials within disclosed formula (1) in combination as host materials in a light emitting device, because Ahn teaches the materials as host materials and also teaches “at least one” compound of formula (1) is used in forming a device. One would expect to achieve a functional device within the disclosure of Ahn comprising two host materials of formula (1) with a predictable result of an operational light emitting device and a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, it is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclar & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045) and also, “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Ahn teaches a device may comprise a phosphorescent dopant in combination with host material(s) (see 44, 46, 49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, the declaration is not persuasive to overcome the obviousness rejection, because the additional device example is not commensurate in scope with the breath of claimed compounds and the comparative example compounds are not commensurate with what is fairly taught in the prior art. Furthermore, the examples are specifically formed devices with specific amounts of “host” compounds and dopants whereas none of the claims are as limited in scope. Claims 1-3 are directed to compositions of two materials. Claim 7 is directed a device, but is not limited to a specific dopant compound or amounts of host materials. The examples relied on by applicant as evidence of unexpected results do not provide an adequate basis to support a conclusion that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claims will behave in the same manner, and therefore, the evidence is not persuasive of nonobviousness because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. (See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).) With further regard to the additional “inventive” example in the declaration and examples in the specification, none of the claims are limited only to the very specific host compounds (i.e., T-1, H1-1, H1-42, T-2, H2-2, H2-1) or combinations of specific host compounds (i.e., T-1/T-2; H1-1/H2-2; H1-1/H2-1; H1-42/H2-2) of examples.
Applicant argues only a few compounds in Ahn working examples were of particular importance. In response, a reference is not limited to only example embodiments. A reference is relevant for all it contains.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Braveenth, Ramanaskanda, et al. "Utilizing triazine/pyrimidine acceptor and carbazole-triphenylamine donor based bipolar novel host materials for highly luminescent green phosphorescent oleds with lower efficiency roll-off." Dyes and Pigments 157 (2018): 377-384.
The reference discusses mixed hosts for a phosphorescent device and is considered relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights