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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 01/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8 and 10 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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, 4-5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choy et al (JP 2014521604, ‘604 hereafter) in view of park et al (US 2018/0301636, ‘636 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8, ‘604 discloses a host material comprising an organic electroluminescent compound represented by following chemical formula (1) ([0008], [0012]-[0016], and claims 1-5, [0067]):
PNG
media_image1.png
253
321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein X1 and X2 can be N, and L1 can be a hetero-arylene group including a pyridinyl group as in following chemical formula (claim 5 of ‘604):
PNG
media_image2.png
184
92
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The formulae read upon instantly claimed chemical formula 1 as in the present claim 1, except that the substitution position of
PNG
media_image3.png
163
166
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is different from the substitution position of formula (1-4) and formula (1-6) as recited in the present claim 1, which is a position isomer of the compound as instantly claimed. Case law holds that position isomers are prima facie structurally obvious even in the absence of an explicit teaching to modify. “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). (See MPEP 2144.09 II). The formulae also satisfy
all the limitations as recited in the present claims 1-2 and 4-5. ‘604 discloses that the compound can be used as a host material in an organic electroluminescent device ([0067]), but does not disclose that the host material further comprises a second host material as recited in the present claims 1 and 8. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘636 discloses a host material comprising a first organic electroluminescent compound having similar chemical structure to the presently claimed compound represented by the formula I (first host, contains both triazine ring and carbazole rings, [0025]-[0045]), and a second host material having chemical formula satisfying formula 11 as in the present claims 1 and 8 ([0064], Compounds H2-19 to H2-26), to render an organic electroluminescent device having high efficiency and long lifetime ([0023]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a second host compound as taught by ‘636, to modify the host material of ‘604, in order to render a light emitting device having high efficiency and long lifetime.
Regarding claim 10, modified ‘604 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘604 also discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising the host compound as disclosed ([0067]-[0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782