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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on March 3, 2026.
Claim 16 has been added.
Claims 1 – 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Shin cannot be used as a rationale for modifying Huh because the alleged equivalency recognized by the Examiner is not recognized in the prior art and that the mere fact that the components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish equivalency. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shin teaches that compounds within the scope of Formula 1 are predictably suitable for use as host compounds in phosphorescent light emitting materials. These compounds include structural isomers of the compounds of Huh. Huh teaches that its compounds are also predictably suitable for use as host compounds in phosphorescent light emitting materials. The groups are not solely different options in a Markush group, but structural isomers used in the same application. Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c). and “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).
Applicant argues that the claimed composition provides surprising and unexpected benefits over compositions falling within the teachings of the Huh reference. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The properties shown in Table 3 are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the fact that the claims are directed to a composition, whereas the data is shown for the use of the composition in a device, with a particular dopant material, none of which is required by the claims. Furthermore, the data shown is for one compound, which is not interpreted as sufficient evidence that similar results would be obtained over the entire range of variables in Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh (KR20170139443A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Shin (KR20120029751A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 11, Huh teaches:
A composition for an optoelectronic device comprising a first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
344
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Huh teaches compounds of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
308
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0007]). A particular compound taught by Huh is
PNG
media_image3.png
114
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. These compounds are a structural isomer of the claimed Formula that differs in the bonding of the indolo group to the dibenzofuran group. However, in analogous art, Shin teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
152
172
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Page 4), which shows that the structural isomers of indolodibenzofuran and indolodibenzothiophene are functionally equivalent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bonding of the indolo group to the dibenzofuran group in the compound of Huh and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula. The Office points out that sections 2144.09 I and II of the MPEP state “A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities.” An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, paragraph II.A.4.(c). and “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X is O; Z1 to Z3 are N; R1 to R9 are each hydrogen; L1 to L4 are each independently a single bond; Ar1 to Ar3 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely an unsubstituted phenyl group as required by claims 2 and 3 and are represented by
PNG
media_image5.png
34
54
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 4 and 5 this compound is the same as compound A-66 in claim 6
PNG
media_image6.png
82
104
media_image6.png
Greyscale
;.)
A second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image7.png
222
430
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(In [0124], Huh teaches that the light emitting layer includes a compound of Chemical Formula 1 as a host and another host material. Huh teaches that the other host material is represented by Chemical Formula B
PNG
media_image8.png
252
232
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0128]). A particular compound taught by Huh as an example of Chemical Formula B is
PNG
media_image9.png
174
144
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0137]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar4 and Ar5 are both an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 8; L5 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a phenylene group as required by claim 8; L6 is a single bond; R10 to R20 are each independently hydrogen; m is an integer of 0. This compound is represented by Chemical Formula 2-8 in claim 7; the groups are of
PNG
media_image10.png
32
46
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image11.png
38
62
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 9 and
PNG
media_image12.png
32
46
media_image12.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image13.png
26
70
media_image13.png
Greyscale
in claim 10. The compound is the same as compound C-23 in claim 11
PNG
media_image14.png
116
128
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.)
As per claim 12, Huh teaches:
An organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer includes a light emitting layer ([0022]: “Figure 1 illustrates an example of an organic light-emitting device in which a substrate (1), an anode (2), a light-emitting layer (3), and a cathode (4) are sequentially laminated.”)
The light emitting layer includes the composition for an organic optoelectronic device ([0124]: “In one embodiment of the present application, the organic layer includes a light-emitting layer, and the light-emitting layer includes the compound as a host material and further includes another host material.”)
As per claim 13, Huh teaches:
Wherein the composition for an organic optoelectronic device is included as a phosphorescent host of the light emitting layer ([0121]: “In one embodiment of the present application, the light emitting layer further includes a phosphorescent material.”)
As per claim 14, Huh teaches:
Wherein the composition for an organic optoelectronic device includes the first compound and the second compound in a weight ratio of 20:80 to 50:50 ([0125]: “The compound and the other host material are included in a ratio of 1:9 to 9:1.”)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh (KR20170139443A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Shin (KR20120029751A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 14 above, and further in view of Parham (US20160248023A1).
As per claim 15, the prior art combination teaches organic optoelectronic devices (Huh, [0022]). The prior art combination does not teach:
A display device comprising the organic optoelectronic device
Parham teaches organic electroluminescent devices ([0002]). Parham teaches that these devices can be used in displays ([0165]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic optoelectronic device of the prior art combination in a display device because Parham teaches that display devices are a predictably suitable use for similar organic optoelectronic devices.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 10, 12 – 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh (KR20200069247A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 5, 7 – 10, and 16, Suh teaches:
A composition for an optoelectronic device comprising a first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
344
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(In [0069], Suh teaches compounds represented by Formula 1-2
PNG
media_image15.png
214
518
media_image15.png
Greyscale
([0069]). A specific compound taught by Suh is
PNG
media_image16.png
88
136
media_image16.png
Greyscale
([0094]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X is S; Z1 to Z3 are N; R2 is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen; L1 to L4 are each independently a single bond; Ar1 is an unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group, namely a dibenzofuranyl group as required by claim 2; Ar2 and Ar3 are each independently a unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely an unsubstituted aryl group as required by claim 3, and a group represented by
PNG
media_image17.png
38
46
media_image17.png
Greyscale
in claim 4 and 5.)
A second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image7.png
222
430
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(In [0125], Suh teaches that when the compound of Chemical Formula 1 is used in a light-emitting layer, the light-emitting layer may further comprise a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image18.png
226
358
media_image18.png
Greyscale
. A specific compound taught by Suh is
PNG
media_image19.png
166
126
media_image19.png
Greyscale
([0137]), which reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar4 and Ar5 are both an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 8; L5 and L6 are an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a phenylene group as required by claim 8; R10 to R20 are each independently hydrogen; m is an integer of 0. This compound is represented by Chemical Formula 2-8 in claim 7; the groups are of
PNG
media_image11.png
38
62
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in claim 9 and
PNG
media_image13.png
26
70
media_image13.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image20.png
50
64
media_image20.png
Greyscale
in claim 10.)
As per claim 12, Suh teaches:
An organic optoelectronic device comprising an anode and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer between the anode and the cathode, wherein the at least one organic layer includes a light emitting layer ([0031]: “Fig. 1 illustrates an example of an organic light-emitting device comprising a substrate (1), an anode (2), a light-emitting layer (3), and a cathode (4).”)
The light emitting layer includes the composition for an organic optoelectronic device ([0029]: “In particular, the compound represented by chemical formula 1 can be used as a… light emission… material.”)
As per claim 13, Suh teaches:
Wherein the composition for an organic optoelectronic device is included as a phosphorescent host of the light emitting layer ([0102]: “Accordingly, when a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is applied as a host compound for the light-emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device…”)
As per claim 14, Suh teaches:
Wherein the composition for an organic optoelectronic device includes the first compound and the second compound in a weight ratio of 20:80 to 50:50 (In Examples 7 – 9, the host materials are provided in a ratio of 40:60).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789