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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 18, 2026 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated August 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 6 were amended. Claim 5 is a canceled claim. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2018/0351113 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 2014/0091298 A1) is withdrawn in response to the claim amendment received August 18, 2026.
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 Cha et al. (WO 2019/194594 A1; cited on 9/3/2024 Notice of References Cited with a translation copy) in view of Hong et al. (US 2014/0091298 A1).
Regarding the composition of materials set forth in claims 1-4, 6, and 8, Cha et al. teaches material for organic light emitting devices comprising organic layers (see par. 19, 196, 197, 211, 215). Cha teaches compounds of formula 1 for a light emitting device that reads upon instant formula 2 per instant “second host material”:
PNG
media_image1.png
246
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see par. 7-19).
Note that at least Cha et al. formula 1 that is more specifically formula 2 (see par. 152) is the same as instant compound “C2-152” in instant claim 6 when L is selected as heteroaryl pyridine (see par. 12, 47), each X1 to X3 is selected as nitrogen (see par. 11), Ar1 is selected as aryl phenyl, and Ar2 is selected as aryl phenyl (see par. 13, 43):
PNG
media_image2.png
262
234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
170
96
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Cha et al. Formula 2) (Instant C2-152).
Additional materials may be used in the Cha et al. organic layers such as heterocyclic containing groups as host material (see Cha et al. par. 196, 197, 211, 230), but it is not seen where compounds the same as instant claim 1 instant formula 1-4 or more specifically, instant claim 8 compounds are discussed. In analogous art, Hong et al. teaches an organic light emitting device may comprise a light emitting layer host material of formula 1 (see Hong et al. par. 12-19, par. 134-135, and claim 17 on page 48) per instant “first host material”:
PNG
media_image4.png
96
272
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.When a compound of Hong et al. formula 1 includes each ring A and ring B as naphthalene (Hong et al. see par. 14), Ar1 as aryl phenyl (see Hong et al. par. 16, 39), X1 as NR with R as aryl phenyl (see Hong et al. par. 17, 18, and 31), and X2 as direct bond (see Hong et al. par. 17), the compound is the same as at least instant compound C1-128 of instant claim 8:
PNG
media_image5.png
110
96
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
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 light emitting layer host material of formula (1) as taught by Cha et al. (per instant “second host” and at least instant C2-152) and a host material of Hong et al. formula 1 (per instant “first host” and at least instant C1-128) as specifically discussed above. One would expect host derivatives taught by Hong et al. to be similarly functional as host material in an emitting layer within a light emitting device structure as taught by Cha et al. Note that “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 for an organic layer as taught by Cha et al. and Hong et al. within instant formulas 1-4 and 2, respectively, with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, the above discussed host materials as taught by Cha et al. and Hong 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:
KR 20180031385 A sets forth compounds relevant to instant formula 2. The reference is considered pertinent 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
Prosecution Insights