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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/11/2025 and 01/06/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 06/17/2021. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 01/21/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 15-17 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 6, 8-14, and 18-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the significance between Example 7 and Comparative Example 4, as well as between Example 9 and Comparative Example 5 are persuasive.
In light of Applicant’s remarks, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 6, and 15-16 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 103435597 A) and Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1), and of claims 7-14 and 17-20 as being unpatentable over Liu and Li above and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0197386 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
However, upon further consideration, a new non-final office rejection is furnished herein to replace the non-final office action dated 10/21/2025. The grounds for this rejection are set forth below.
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, 8-10, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inayama et al. (US 2019/0214570 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Inayama discloses a compound for an organic optoelectronic device (paragraph 0002) such as compound 306 (page 68) which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
220
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Inayama Formula 1 (paragraph 0119), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
234
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Inayama also teaches that R11 is a cyano group (paragraph 0024, see also compounds 23 and 27).
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 1 when Ar1 is a cyano-substituted phenyl group, R1 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, R2 through R8 are hydrogen atoms, and L1 is represented by L-3.
Inayama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Inayama being a lack of the aforementioned cyano substituent being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible substituents to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a heterocyclic compound with prevented pi-stacking with respect to the LUMO plane of the triazine core as a result of the presence of two or more carbazole substituents, one of which is linked to the triazine core through an aryl-based linker in order to extend the LUMO formed and improve the stability and electron injection of a compound, which is also able to prevent quenching due to an aggregation site, and a device having high efficiency and long lifespan (paragraphs 0123-0124), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Inayama also teaches a composition including the heterocyclic compound above and a first compound of Formula 5 (paragraph 0132 and paragraph 0135), such as Compound H1 (paragraph 0182), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
330
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 2 when Y1 and Y2 are each a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, L2 and L3 are each a single bond, m is 0, and all R groups are hydrogen atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound H1 in combination with compound 306 in the manufacture of an emission layer for a light emitting device in order to obtain a layer which can be manufactured using solution process and which improves or maintains the current efficiency and lifespan of the device (paragraph 0154, lines 8-12).
With respect to claims 8, 9, and 10, Inayama teaches the composition of claim 1 and Chemical Formula 2 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-8 when *-L2-Y1 and *-L3-Y2 are represented by B-1 (phenyl), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 14, Inayama teaches the composition of claim 1, and the second compound is represented by Chemical Formula 2-8 when L2 and L3 are a single bond, and Y1 and Y2 are a phenyl group, as pictured above.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Inayama teaches the composition of claim 1, and Inayama also teaches an organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and cathode and at least one organic layer including an emission layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0004, lines 1-4) and the composition is in the emission layer, as discussed above.
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inayama et al. (US 2019/0214570 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0197386 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Inayama teaches the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Inayama does not teach nor fairly suggest a composition comprising the compound of Formula 1, and an additional compound represented by instant Chemical Formula 3C.
In analogous art, Kim teaches a first and second host for an organic electroluminescent device which may provide an organic optoelectronic device having high efficiency and long lifespan (paragraph 0021).
Kim teaches a first host, such as compound I-1 (page 13), which is the same compound as Compound H1 of Inayama.
Kim also teaches a second host, such as H-33 (page 12), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
264
313
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula H-33 is derived from Kim Chemical Formula A-1 (paragraph 0023), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
169
301
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This formula forms Chemical Formula H-33 when ring A is represented by Chemical Formula A-5, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
145
304
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim also teaches that ring A may be represented by Chemical Formula A-6, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
142
307
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In Chemical Formula A-6, X1, R1 and R2 have the same definitions as those in Chemical Formula A-5 above.
Such a modification forms a compound which meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 3C when Y3 is a C6 aryl (phenyl) group, Y4 is a substituted C3 heterocyclic (triazinyl) group, La1, La2, L4, and L5 are a single bond, and all R groups are hydrogen atoms.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned A-group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known A-group from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a composition for an organic optoelectronic device which may adjust the balance between holes and electrons in an emission layer, improve luminous efficiency, and increase the life-span of a device (paragraph 0133), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host materials of Kim in combination with the material of Liu in order to obtain an organic optoelectronic device having high efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Kim.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Inayama and Kim teach the composition of claim 11, as discussed above.
By way of example, Kim also teaches that Ar1, which is analogous to instant Y4, is a substituted pyridine group (See for example, Chemical Formula H-24 on page 33).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when Y3 is an unsubstituted phenyl group and Y4 is a substituted pyridinyl group.
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim being a lack of the aforementioned A-group being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known A-group from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a composition for an organic optoelectronic device which may adjust the balance between holes and electrons in an emission layer, improve luminous efficiency, and increase the life-span of a device (paragraph 0133), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host materials of Kim in combination with the material of Liu in order to obtain an organic optoelectronic device having high efficiency and long lifespan, as taught by Kim.
With respect to claim 20, Inayama teaches the organic optoelectronic device of claim 18, as discussed above.
However, Inayama does not teach a display device comprising the optoelectronic device.
In analogous art, Kim teaches a material for an organic electroluminescent device which may provide an organic optoelectronic device having high efficiency and long lifespan (paragraph 0021).
Kim also teaches the optoelectronic device may be used in a display device (paragraph 0074).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optoelectronic device of Inayama and Kim in a display device, as taught by Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim is drawn to three specific embodiments of the first compound as set forth in independent claim 1. These three embodiments are pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
272
534
media_image8.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not identify the claimed invention.
The closest identified prior art is Inayama et al. (US 2019/0214570 A1).
With respect to dependent claim 6, Inayama teaches triazine compounds which comprise at least two carbazole moieties, one of which is connected to the triazine core through an arylene linking group (paragraphs 0123-0124). These compounds are represented by Formula 1, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image9.png
228
494
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In this formula, Ar1 may be represented by any of Formulae 2-1(1) to 2-1(6), 2-2(1) to 2-2(18), and 2-3(1) to 2-3(13) and Ar2 may be selected from Formulae 2-1(1) to 2-1(16), 2-2(1) to 2-2(18), 2-3(1) to 2-3(13), and 2-6(1) to 2-6(11) (pages 7-12).
Examiner notes that all of the above identified definitions for Ar1 and Ar2 which comprise a biphenylene linking group have at least one ortho-bonding pattern. This is different from the compounds of the instant claim which do not comprise any ortho-bonding pattern.
Additionally, there existed no teaching nor motivation to make such a modification in the broader prior art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights