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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 7 June 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 3-4 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 June 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al. (US 2022/0037594 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0037594 A1) (hereafter “Lee”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) (hereafter “Liao) and as evidenced by Cheng et al. (“Role of the Charge Generation Layer in Tandem Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Investigated by Time-Resolved Electroluminescence Spectroscopy” Journal of Physical Chemistry C (2011) vol. 115, pp. 582-588.) (hereafter “Cheng”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the discussed results are a showing of unexpected results showing nonobviousness over the cited references.
The new data is not in the form of a declaration or an affidavit and therefore cannot be considered. See MPEP 716.02(g). However, the analysis below is provided in order to assist Applicant in determining if the filing of an affidavit or declaration containing similar information is desired.
While the Additional Comparative Example H and the Additional Comparative Example I are compounds of the disclosure of Lee, comparison with the inventive examples does not make it clear that placing a substituent on the unsubstituted benzene ring of the cite compound of Lee,
PNG
media_image1.png
354
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, would be unpredictable. All of the compounds ET-001 through ET-008 have the triazine substituent at the circled positions of the compound of Lee shown above. Thus, there are multiple differences between the Additional Comparative Example H and the Additional Comparative Example I and the compounds ET-001 through ET-008. It cannot be determined that the absence of a substituent at the circled position by itself is the reason that the devices using compounds ET-001 through ET-008 have superior results to the devices using the Additional Comparative Example H and the Additional Comparative Example I. Thus, it cannot be determined that the placement of a substituent on the unsubstituted benzene ring of the cite compound of Lee would be unpredictable.
Furthermore, in the case that the presence of the triazine ring substituent at the circled positions is required for the superior results to be observed, the proffered results are not commensurate in scope with the current claims.
For at least these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al. (US 2022/0037594 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-2: Lee discloses the compound shown below {p. 19}.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not disclose a compound similar to the compound shown above except for having a substituent on the circled ring above.
However, Lee teaches that the compounds of Lee have the structure of Formula 1 of Lee, shown below {paragraph [0042]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
522
892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where R1 can be aryl, such as phenyl {paragraphs [0051]-[0052]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Lee by placing a phenyl substituent at one of the positions circled above, based on the teaching of Lee. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of one of the circled positions would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the possible positions for substitution), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claims 6-7: Lee discloses all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Lee does not disclose a specific device comprising the compound of Chae described above.
However, Lee teaches that the compound shown above has the structure of formula 1 of Lee {paragraphs [0010] and [0042]}.
Lee teaches that the compounds having the structure of formula 1 of Chae are useful as the host material of the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device or as compounds of an electron transport layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0033]}.
The organic light emitting device of Lee comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and one or more organic material layers provided between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0030]-[0031]}.
The organic material layers include a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, and electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer as well as optionally a hole blocking layer {paragraphs [0030]-[0031]}.
Lee teaches that organic light emitting devices comprising the compounds of Lee are enabled to have lower driving voltage and improved efficiency and lifetime {paragraph [0012]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Lee shown above by incorporating it into the device structure of Lee described above as the host material of the light emitting layer or as the material of the electron transport layer, based on the teaching of Lee. 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, which in this case means producing additional devices based on the teaching of Chae having high efficiency, improved lifetime, improved stability, and lower driving voltage.
Regarding claim 8: Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Lee does not exemplify a specific device structure in which the compound of Lee is comprised in the electron transport layer.
However, Lee teaches that the compounds having the structure of formula 1 of Chae are useful as the host material of the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device or as compounds of an electron transport layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0033]}.
Additionally, Lee teaches that the electron transport layer can serve as a hole blocking layer {paragraph [0031]}.
Lee teaches that organic light emitting devices comprising the compounds of Lee are enabled to have lower driving voltage and improved efficiency and lifetime {paragraph [0012]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compound of Lee shown above by incorporating it into the device structure of Lee described above as the material of the electron transport layer that is also serving as a hole blocking layer, based on the teaching of Lee. 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, which in this case means producing additional devices based on the teaching of Chae having high efficiency, improved lifetime, improved stability, and lower driving voltage.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0037594 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) (hereafter “Liao) and as evidenced by Cheng et al. (“Role of the Charge Generation Layer in Tandem Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Investigated by Time-Resolved Electroluminescence Spectroscopy” Journal of Physical Chemistry C (2011) vol. 115, pp. 582-588.) (hereafter “Cheng”).
Regarding claim 9: Lee teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Lee does not teach that the device of Lee comprises a first stack provided on the first electrode and comprising a first light emitting layer; a charge generation layer provided on the first stack, a second stack provided on the charge generation layer and comprising a second light emitting layer, and the second electrode provided on the second stack.
Liao teaches a white light emitting organic light emitting diode structure {paragraphs [0008]-[0017], [0023], [0025], [0049]-[0050], and [0052]-[0054] as well as Figs. 3 and 5}.
Specifically, Liao teaches a stacked structure of white light light-emitting units connected by connector units, as shown below {paragraphs [0049]-[0050] and [0052]-[0054] as well as Fig. 3}.
PNG
media_image3.png
470
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The number of EL units can be 2 {paragraph [0053] and Fig. 5}.
The connector layers that are between each white light-emitting EL unit can comprise a p-doped organic layer and an n-doped organic layer {paragraph [0114] and Fig. 8}. Cheng provides evidence that such a structure can be equated with a charge generating layer {p. 582, 1st col., 1st paragraph}.
Liao teaches that this stacked structure provides high efficiency, high brightness, long lifetime, improved color stability, and simplified device fabrication {paragraphs [0018]-[0020]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Lee to have the stacked structure of Liao described above, based on the teaching of Liao. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having high efficiency, high brightness, long lifetime, improved color stability, and simplified device fabrication, as taught by Liao.
Regarding claim 10: Lee as modified by Liao teaches all of the features with respect to claim 9, as outlined above.
Lee as modified by Liao does not exemplify that the charge generation layer comprises the heterocyclic compound of Ito.
However, Liao teaches that the host material of the n-doped layer of the charge generation layer can be an electron transporting material {paragraph [0115]}.
Lee teaches that the compounds having the structure of formula 1 of Chae are useful as the host material of the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device or as compounds of an electron transport layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraph [0033]}.
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 device of Lee such that the modified compound of Lee was used in the charge generation layer taught by Liao, based on the teaching of Liao and Lee. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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:
As outlined in the Office action of 1 October 2024, Son et al. (WO 2018/038464 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Son”) can be equated with the closest prior art. However, as described above, Applicant has successfully argued that the current claims are nonobvious over Son.
As outlined in the Office action of 10 April 2025, Ito et al. (US 2013/0306958 A1) (hereafter “Ito”) can also be equated with the closest prior art. However, Ito does not teach a compound having the structure of the current claim 5. For example, while the compound
PNG
media_image4.png
200
220
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on p. 25 of Ito is close to a compound of the current claim 5, the phenyl substituent is in the wrong position. A comparison of the results in the instant Table 5 for devices using Compounds ET-459 and ET-579 demonstrate that compounds differing only in the position of a phenyl substituent on the benzene ring of the fused ring heterocyclic group structure have significant performance differences (efficiency and lifetime). Thus, the different positions for bonding on the benzene ring of the fused ring heterocyclic group are not predictable and therefore non-obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights