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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 17 December 2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 34, 39, 47, and 52 have been amended.
Claims 1-33, 37-38, 42-44, 46, and 54-59 are cancelled.
Claims 34-36, 39-41, 45, 47-53 are pending.
The amendments to claims 34, 47, and 52 have overcome the rejections of claims 34-36, 38-40, 47-50, 52, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2016/0163995 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 41 and 50-51 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2016/0163995 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Jang et al. (WO 2015/152644 A1—US 2016/0276596 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Jang”) and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 34, 47, and 52 have overcome the rejections of claims 34-36, 38, 40-41, 45, 47-49, 51-52, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Lin et al. (US 2010/0187984 A1) (hereafter “Lin”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 40-41, 47-48, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2010/0187984 A1) (hereafter “Lin”), and further in view of Jang et al. (WO 2015/152644 A1—US 2016/0276596 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Jang”) and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2010/0187984 A1) (hereafter “Lin”), and further in view of D’Andrade (US 2002/0197511 A1) (hereafter “D’Andrade”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 34 has overcome the rejections of claims 34, 36, 38, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al. (US 2012/0001165 A1) (hereafter “Komori”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 34 has overcome the rejections of claims 34, 36, 38, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai et al. (US 2011/0062429 A1) (hereafter “Kai”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and Moon et al. (WO 2013/154325 A1) (hereafter “Moon”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimer filed 17 December 2025 has obviated the rejections of claims 34-36, 38, and 55-59 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,495,749 B2 set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 34-36, 38-40, 47-50, 52, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2016/0163995 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action as well as the rejections of claims 41 and 50-51 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2016/0163995 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Jang et al. (WO 2015/152644 A1—US 2016/0276596 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Jang”) and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 34-36, 38, 40-41, 45, 47-49, 51-52, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Lin et al. (US 2010/0187984 A1) (hereafter “Lin”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 40-41, 47-48, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2010/0187984 A1) (hereafter “Lin”), and further in view of Jang et al. (WO 2015/152644 A1—US 2016/0276596 A1 used as an English language equivalent) (hereafter “Jang”) and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) (hereafter “Seo”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2010/0187984 A1) (hereafter “Lin”), and further in view of D’Andrade (US 2002/0197511 A1) (hereafter “D’Andrade”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 34, 36, 38, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al. (US 2012/0001165 A1) (hereafter “Komori”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 34, 36, 38, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai et al. (US 2011/0062429 A1) (hereafter “Kai”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and Moon et al. (WO 2013/154325 A1) (hereafter “Moon”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 34-36, 38, and 55-59 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,495,749 B2 set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 41, 45, and 51 contain subject matter that is not present in the 15/064,023 or 15/283,982 applications, to which the current application claims priority. Specifically, the claimed second compound of claims 41, 45, and 51 is only supported by the 15/951,662 application, which has a priority date of 12 April 2018. Thus, Zeng et al. (US 2016/0293855 A1) (hereafter “Zeng ‘855”) cited below is prior art.
The remaining claims are properly supported by the 15/064,023 application and have a priority date of 12 November 2015 at the latest, and thus, Zeng et al. (US 2016/0293855 A1) (hereafter “Zeng ‘855”) is not prior art (all inventors in Zeng ‘855 are on the instant application, and thus exception 102(b)(2)(A) applies).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 41, 45, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2016/0293855 A1) (hereafter “Zeng ‘855”) and Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 41 and 51: Zeng discloses several compounds comprising diazatriphenylene or , an example of which is shown below {(paragraphs [0020]-[0026], [0035]-[0041], [0049]-[0059], and [0096]-[0103]: The disclosure of Zeng relates to a composition comprising a first compound and a second compound where the first compound has the structure of Formula I of Zeng.), (paragraph [0068]: The compound of Zeng ‘855 is exemplified the by the compounds on pp. 7-25), (p. 12, Compounds A32, A33; p. 18, Compounds B31, B32)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Compound A32)]
PNG
media_image1.png
656
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zeng ‘855 does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Zeng described above.
However, Zeng ‘855 teaches an organic light emitting device (OLED) comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode {paragraphs [0025], [0070]-[0073]}.
Zeng ‘855 teaches that the organic layer can be a light-emitting layer that comprises the compound of Zeng ‘855 and a second compound that is a phosphorescent emissive dopant that is a transition metal complex that can have any of the structures on pp. 26-27 of Zeng ‘855 {paragraphs [0070]-[0073]}.
Zeng ‘855 teaches that the compound of the disclosure of Zeng ‘855 is a host material of the light-emitting layer {paragraphs [0003], [0072], and [0130]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compounds of Zeng ‘855 described above by incorporating one of them into the device of Zeng ‘855 described above as a host material of the light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Zeng ‘855. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Zeng ‘855 does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises an additional host material.
Lee teaches compounds similar in structure to the compounds of Zeng ‘855 that can be used as host materials for a light-emitting dopant in a light-emitting layer of an OLED {(paragraph [0008]: The organic layer comprises an emissive layer, which comprises a first host having the structure if Lee's formula 1.), (paragraph [0035]: The compounds having the structure of Lee's formula 1 are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 6-73.)}.
Lee further teaches that the light-emitting layer comprises a 2nd host material {paragraphs [0008]-[0013]: The compound having the structure of formula 2 is a co-host material.}.
Lee teaches that the 2nd host can have the structure of one of Lee’s Compounds H2-36 to H2-78 and H2-83 to H2-100 (H2-72 is shown below as a representative example) {(paragraphs [0008]-[0013]: The compound having the structure of formula 2 is a co-host material.), (paragraph [0036]: The compounds having the structure of formula 2 are exemplified by compounds H2-1 through H2-495.), (pp. 79-91, Compounds H2-36 to H2-78 and H2-83 to H2-100.)}.
[AltContent: textbox (Lee’s Compound H2-72)]
PNG
media_image2.png
700
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches That devices using the combination of materials of Lee have lower driving voltage, higher efficiency, higher color purity, and longer lifespan {paragraph [0061]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the organic electroluminescent device taught by Zeng ‘855 by including one of Lee’s Compounds H2-36 to H2-78 and H2-83 to H2-100 as a second host material, based on the teaching of Lee. The modification would have been motivated by using a combination of materials taught by Lee to provide organic light emitting devices having lower driving voltage, higher efficiency, higher color purity, and longer lifespan, as taught by Lee.
The host materials of the light emitting layer of the resultant device would have been a composition of the compound of Zeng ‘855 and one of Lee’s Compounds H2-36 to H2-78 and H2-83 to H2-100.
Regarding claim 45: Zeng as modified by Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claim 41, as outlined above.
Zeng as modified by Lee to not teach a specific example in which a compound of the current claim 45 is the instant second compound.
However, as outlined above, Lee teaches compound H2-72 is an exemplified 2nd host material of Lee.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-36, 39-40, 47-50, and 52-53 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As outlined in the last Office action, Kang et al. (US 2016/0163995 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) can be interpreted as the closest prior art. However, Kang does not teach that the instant R4 can be one of the required groups of the current claims 34, 47, and 52. Furthermore, the prior art does not teach or motivate modifying the compounds of Kang such that they would comprise the instant R4 as one of the required groups of the current claims 34, 47, and 52.
In sum, claims 34-36, 39-40, 47-50, and 52-53 are allowable over the cited prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786