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
In the response filed 07/31/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-14 were originally filed.
Claims 2-11 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 12 are instantly amended.
Claims 1 and 12-14 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the cited references have not been shown to teach or suggest a composition comprising a first and second compound of the instant claims, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the office has failed to show that the proposed combination would render obvious the subject matter of the instant claims, Examiner disagrees and points to at least paragraphs 15, 16, and 38 of the office action dated 05/01/2026 for the motivation to not only select compounds of the instant claims, but combine them in order to improve the luminous efficiency and life-span characteristics of the organic optoelectronic device by increasing charge mobility and stability.
For at least these reasons, the claims remain rejected over the combination of Galan et al. (US 2022/0102647 A1), Lee et al. (US 2018/0123049 A1), and Shin et al. (KR 102031300 B1, using US 2022/0069229 A1 as an official translation and for references).
However, the amendments to the claims has necessitated a reinterpretation of the prior art to explain how the prior art still reads on the instant claims.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
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 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galan et al. (US 2022/0102647 A1), Lee et al. (US 2018/0123049 A1), and Shin et al. (KR 102031300 B1, using US 2022/0069229 A1 as an official translation and for references).
With respect to claim 1, Galan discloses an organic electronic device (abstract), comprising a compound of formula 1, such as G27 (page 18), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from the combination of Galan formulae 1 and 2 (paragraphs 0009 and 0013). In formula 2, Galan also teaches that Ar2 (the phenyl group in compound G27), can also be selected as formula E19 (paragraph 0185 and page 9), which is a 1-naphthylene group.
Applicant will also note that Galan is not limiting with respect to the bonding position on linking group L3, which is analogous to the instant phenylene group between the triazine and the 9-carbazole group.
Given the general formula and teachings of Galan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of the compound of Galan in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a compound in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Galan and possess the properties taught by Galan. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Galan includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Galan being a lack of the aforementioned combination 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, such as a naphthyl 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 an organic semiconductor layer with strong electron transport characteristics which increases charge mobility and/or stability, thereby improving luminance efficiency, voltage characteristics, and/or lifetime characteristics of an electronic device comprising the layer, commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Such a modification produces instant first compound 1-1.
However, Galan does not fairly suggest an ortho-phenylene linker between the triazine and carbazole moiety.
In analogous art, Lee teaches a triazine/carbazole compound for use in the emissive layer of an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0026).
Lee teaches that when the electron donating carbazole group and the electron withdrawing triazine group are bonded to benzene, and the carbazole is positioned ortho to the triazine group, through the effect of steric hinderance, it is possible to control the overlapping of HOMO and LUMO and reduce the difference between the singlet energy and the triplet energy and minimize the energy difference between the singlet excited state and the triplet excited state, which may result in delayed fluorescence (paragraph 0027).
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 create a positional isomer of the compound of Galan in order to produce an ortho-benzene moiety in order to control the overlapping of HOMO and LUMO in the compound, reducing the difference between the singlet excited state and triplet excited state, resulting in delayed fluorescence, as taught by Lee.
However, Galan does not teach nor fairly suggest a composition comprising a second compound represented by one of instant Chemical Formula 2-8 or Chemical Formulae 3C.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a composition for use in an organic optoelectronic device comprising a triazine/carbazole compound (abstract and Chemical Formula 1).
Shin teaches that the composition for the organic optoelectronic device, in addition to the carbazole/triazine compound, should comprise a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2, or a compound represented by the combination of chemical formulae 3 and 4 (paragraph 0015), such as Compound [B-22] (page 19, derived from Chemical Formula 2), or Compound [C-1] (page 40, derived from the combination of chemical formulae 3 and 4), which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
244
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound B-22 meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formula 2-8 when L2-Ar2 and L3-Ar3 are each represented by instant C-1, and all R variables are hydrogen atoms. In both of Formula C-1, m6 is 5 and R6 is a hydrogen atom.
Compound C-1 meets the requirements of instant Chemical Formulae 3C when L4-Ar4 and L5-Ar5 are each represented by instant C-1, La3-Ra3 and La4-Ra4 are each a single bond to a hydrogen atom, and all R variables are hydrogen atoms.
Shin teaches that when one of these second compounds is used in a light emitting layer of an organic optoelectronic device with the triazine/carbazole compound, it improves the luminous efficiency and life-span characteristics of the organic optoelectronic device by increasing charge mobility and stability (paragraph 0088).
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 include one of Shin’s Compounds B-22 or C-1 in a composition in the emission layer with the compound of Galan and Lee in order to improve the luminous efficiency and life-span characteristics of the organic optoelectronic device by increasing charge mobility and stability, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Galan, Lee, and Shin teach the composition of claim 1, and Galan also teaches an organic optoelectronic device (an OLED, paragraph 0228), comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other and at least one organic layer between the electrodes, wherein the organic layer comprises an emitting layer (paragraphs 0241-0245), and the emitting layer includes the compound (paragraph 0339).
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 include the composition of Galan, Lee, and Shin in the emissive layer of a device with the claimed structure, as taught by Galan.
With respect to claim 14, Galan, Lee, and Shin teach the optoelectronic device of claim 12, and Galan also teaches an electroluminescent device can be used as a display device (paragraph 0228).
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 Galan, Lee, and Shin in a display device, as taught by Galan.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights