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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 17, 2025 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated October 17, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 8 was added. Claim 5 is a canceled claim. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2018/0351113 A1) in view of Lee et al. WO 2017/200320 A1 (where English language patent family equivalent document US 2019/0185411 was used as the translation) is withdrawn due to the claim amendment dated October 17, 2025.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2018/0351113 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0308201 A1).
Regarding the composition of materials set forth in claims 1-4, 6, and 8, Ahn et al. teaches organic light emitting device comprising a mixture of compounds as host material (see par. 49-51). Ahn teaches compounds of formula 1 (see par. 11) for a light emitting device (see par. 49) that reads upon instant formula 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
254
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see par. 11-17).
Substitution groups for formula (1) are described at par. 11-17. Example compounds shown in par. 43 include the substituent moieties of heteroaryl triazine, heteroaryl pyrimidine, and diarylamino per instant claim 4. Note that at least Ahn compound “C-1” (see Ahn par. 43) is the same as instant compound “C2-29” in instant claim 6:
PNG
media_image2.png
222
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The second host material used by Ahn et al. may be “any of the known phosphorescent hosts” (see Ahn par. 51), but it is not seen where compounds the same as instant claim 1 instant formula 1-1 or 1-4 and more specifically, instant claim 8 compounds are specifically selected as the second host from among known hosts. In analogous art, Lee et al. teaches organic light emitting device comprising host material of formula (2) (see Lee abstract). More specifically formula (2) includes at least compound H1-29 of Lee page 72, which is the same as instant compound C1-100 of instant claim 8:
PNG
media_image3.png
178
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The compound is used in a light emitting layer as a co-host together with a phosphorescent emitting dopant (see Lee abstract, claim 1 and claims 17-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition for use in a light emitting device including a host material of formula (1) as taught by Ahn (per instant “second host”) and a host material of Lee et al. formula (2) (per instant “first host”) as discussed above. One would expect host derivatives taught by Lee et al. to be similarly functional as host material in an emitting layer within a light emitting device structure as taught by Ahn et al. “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). Furthermore, case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., host material in a phosphorescent emitting device) supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclar & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). One would expect to achieve an operational device having a light emitting layer including known host materials as taught by Ahn and Lee within instant formulas 1-1 and 2, respectively, with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, the above discussed host materials as taught by Ahn and Lee et al. are for a light emitting layer of a light emitting device structure.
The office further notes that applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements (i.e., known functional host materials) with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Braveenth, Ramanaskanda, et al. "Triazine-dibenzocarbazole based bipolar host materials for highly luminescent green and yellow phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes." Dyes and Pigments 163 (2019): 607-614.
The reference discusses dibenzocarbazole derivatives for a light emitting device, which is considered relevant to the field of the endeavor.
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