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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sim et al. (US 2021/0399227 A1, hereafter Sim),
the rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 2021/0399227 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0026079 A, the original document is referred to for the figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Kim), and
the provisional rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-10, and 12-13 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-9 of copending Application 17/976,418 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘418) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 23-29 of the reply filed 01/20/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sim et al. (US 2021/0399227 A1, hereafter Sim) and the rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 2021/0399227 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2020/0026079 A, the original document is referred to for the figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Kim) set forth in the Office Action of 08/20/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the rejections.
The rejections refer to the Compound ET01 of Sim (see sections 6 and 16 of the last Office Action, and see the figure below). The compound does not read on the limitation of Formula 2 and 3 of the instant claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sim in view of Um (US 2021/0359215 A1) teaches benefits of substitution of tetraphenylsilane with tetraphenylmethane.
The Compound ET01 of Sim has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound C-84,
PNG
media_image2.png
151
139
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The only difference is that the tetraphenylsilane group is required to be a tetraphenylmethane group; however, Sim does teach the substituents Arb1 to Arb3 of the triazinyl compound of Formula B of Sim can be a substituted aryl group ([0011]) and the substituent of the substituted aryl group can be an alkyl group ([0056]).
Additionally, it is known that a triazinyl compound substituted by a tetraphenylmethane group provides better performance in an organic electroluminescent device than a triazinyl compound substituted by a tetraphenylsilane group.
Um discloses a tetraphenylmethane compound (Formula 1) used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0002], [0007]-[0016]).
Um teaches that a compound having tetraphenylmethane moiety provides steric interaction, high T1 value, high efficiency, improved exciton binding energy, and improved hole transport capability ([0040], [0376]). Um teaches that an organic electroluminescent device comprising a triazinyl compound substituted by a tetraphenylmethane group provides higher efficiency and lower driving voltage than a compound substituted by a tetraphenylsilane group otherwise same (i.e. compare Example 1 comprising Compound 1 with Comparative Example 2 comprising Compound 200 in Table 2 and [0376]). The only difference between the Compound 1 and the comparative Compound 200 is the tetraphenylmethane group (see the parts enclosed by dashed circles in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound ET01 of Sim by substituting the tetraphenylsilane group with tetraphenylmethane group, as taught by Um.
The modification provides Compound of Sim as modified by Um which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound C-84.
PNG
media_image4.png
305
509
media_image4.png
Greyscale
New grounds of rejection is applied. The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 29-30 of the reply filed 01/20/2026 regarding the provisional rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-10, and 12-13 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-9 of copending Application 17/976,418 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘418) set forth in the Office Action of 08/20/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the rejections.
The rejections refer to the compound C-196 (see section 29 of the last Office Action). The compound does not read on the limitation of Formula 2 and 3 of the instant claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 2021/0399227 A1) in view of Um et al. (US 2021/0359215 A1, hereafter Um) and Kim et al. (KR 2020/0026079 A, the original document is referred to for the figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-13, Sim discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer, and a second electrode ([0008], [0021]). Sim teaches that the light emitting layer can comprise a B-containing polycyclic compound of Formula 1 as a dopant and a compound of Formula B as a host ([0023], [0111]).
Sim exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound 1 as a dopant, HT-1 as a host, ET01 as a host), and a second electrode (Example A in Table 3, [0174]-[0178]) wherein the compound ET01 is an organic electroluminescent compound and the light emitting layer material is an organic electroluminescent material.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound ET01 of Sim has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound C-84,
PNG
media_image2.png
151
139
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The only difference is that the tetraphenylsilane group is required to be a tetraphenylmethane group; however, Sim does teach the substituents Arb1 to Arb3 of the triazinyl compound of Formula B of Sim can be a substituted aryl group ([0011]) and the substituent of the substituted aryl group can be an alkyl group ([0056]).
Additionally, it is known that a triazinyl compound substituted by a tetraphenylmethane group provides better performance than a triazinyl compound substituted by a tetraphenylsilane group.
Um discloses a tetraphenylmethane compound (Formula 1) used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0002], [0007]-[0016]).
Um teaches that a compound having tetraphenylmethane moiety provides steric interaction, high T1 value, high efficiency, improved exciton binding energy, and improved hole transport capability ([0040], [0376]). Um teaches that an organic electroluminescent device comprising a triazinyl compound substituted by a tetraphenylmethane group provides higher efficiency and lower driving voltage than a compound substituted by a tetraphenylsilane group otherwise same (i.e. compare Example 1 comprising Compound 1 with Comparative Example 2 comprising Compound 200 in Table 2 and [0376]). The only difference between the Compound 1 and the comparative Compound 200 is the tetraphenylmethane group (see the parts enclosed by dashed circles in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 ET01 of Sim by substituting the tetraphenylsilane group with tetraphenylmethane group, as taught by Um.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide low driving voltage and high efficiency of the organic electroluminescent device comprising the compound, based on the teaching of Um.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents at the positions corresponding to Arb1 to Arb3 of Formula B of Sim would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Sim as modified by Um which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound C-84.
PNG
media_image4.png
305
509
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Organic electroluminescent device of Sim as modified by Um comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound 1of Sim as a dopant, HT-1 of Sim as a host, Compound of Sim as modified by Um as a host), and a second electrode, wherein the Compound of Sim as modified by Um is an organic electroluminescent compound and the light emitting layer material is an organic electroluminescent material, meeting all the limitations of claims 10-13.
The organic electroluminescent device of Sim as modified by Um does not comprise a first host compound of Applicant’s Formula 1; however, Sim does teach that any suitable material generally used in the art can be used as the host ([0114]). Sim further teaches that the light emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Sim can comprises two hosts ([0176]).
Kim discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising multiple hosts ([0001]) comprising a first host of Formula 1 and a second host of Formula 2 ([0008]).
PNG
media_image5.png
301
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches Formula 2-1 which is subgenus of the Formula 2 ([0064]). The Compound of Sim as modified by Um is encompassed by the second host of Formula 2-1 of Kim. Kim exemplifies Compound H-146 of Kim as the first host ([0100]). The Compound H-146 of Kim has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1) and the specific embodiment of H1-51 of the instant claims.
Kim teaches that the multiple hosts provides high luminous efficiency and/or improved life span for the organic electroluminescent device ([0006]).
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 Organic electroluminescent device of Sim as modified by Um by substituting the first host compound HT-1 of Sim with Compound H-146 of Kim, as taught by Sim and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high luminous efficiency and/or improved life span based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Sim as modified by Um and Kim comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound 1 as a dopant, Compound H-146 of Kim as a first host, Compound of Sim as modified by Um as a second host), and a second electrode, wherein the Compound of Sim as modified by Um is an organic electroluminescent compound; and the light emitting layer materials are each an organic electroluminescent material, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-13.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786