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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment received on 7 May 2026. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, and12 are amended; claims 3-5, 7, and 10-11 are cancelled; and claims 13-16 are new. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 12-16 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the specification as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The objection is withdrawn.
The objection to claim 4 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The objection is withdrawn.
The rejection to claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection to claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2021/0070717 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2020/0035905) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2021/0070717 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210070717 A1) in view of Duan et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal 420 (2021) 127591) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020/0035905) in view of Spindler et al. (US 8,877350 B2) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-8 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting by U.S. Patent No. 12,006,312 B2 is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 7 May 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Li reference (US 2021/0070717 A1), applicant points out that Li’s disclosure is confined to the use of similar compounds in a capping layer (CPL) with no technical teaching that would have motivated incorporation of the compound as a host material. New rejections based on Li rely on a different embodiment or a reinterpretation of the reference. As shown in the rejection below, Li still renders obvious the claimed invention
With respect to the Lee reference (KR 20200035905), Applicant's arguments relate to an interpretation of Ar as being an aryl group or heteroaryl group. In the rejection provided below, an interpretation is made under Ar being a fluorenyl group, which is a separate entity in the Markush definition of the instant claim 1. New rejections based on Lee rely on a different embodiment or a reinterpretation of the reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 12-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 define a chemical formula 1 wherein the group Ar, when aryl or heteroaryl, is represented by any one of chemical formulas 2c to 2g where chemical formulas 2c to 2g are all heteroaromatic groups. It is unclear how when Ar is an aryl group it can be represented by Formula 2c to 2g as the claimed Formulae are all heteroaryl groups. There is no definition provided by Applicant to reinterpret “aryl” as including heteroaryls. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner chooses to interpret the claim as when Ar is a heteroaryl group, then Ar is represented by any one of chemical formulas 2c to 2g.
Claims 1 and 9 define a chemical formula 1 wherein the group Ar is selected from the group consisting of a fluorenyl group, a C6-C60 aryl group, and a C2-C60 heterocyclic group. It is unclear how the fluorenyl group is a separate group outside of a C6-C60 aryl group. Furthermore, the claim later recites “wherein when Ar of chemical formula 1 is an aryl group.” It is unclear if the “aryl group” is meant to only refer to the previously recited “C6-C60 aryl group” or if it would also apply when the group is a fluorenyl group, which is also an “aryl group.” Examiner notes that none of the groups of Chemical Formula 2c to 2g are fluorenyl groups, so it is unclear how a fluorenyl group could read on the claimed proviso. therefore, claims 1 and 9 are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will treat the fluorenyl group as a separate selection outside of the group containing the C6-C60 aryl group.
Claims 2, 6, 8, and 12-16 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 13 and 16 recites at least compounds H85 to H96 and EH85 to EH96, which feature group Ar as a C6 aryl group or phenyl, shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1574
1423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 and 16 are dependent on claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein the Ar group of Chemical Formula 1 is defined as when Ar is aryl, Ar is represented by any one of chemical formulas 2c to 2g. The phenyl group is an aryl group that is not represented by formulas 2c to 2g; and, therefore, the compounds H85 to H96 and EH85 to EH96 are outside the scope of the language of claims 1 and 9. For examination purposes, claims 13 and 16 are interpreted as independent claims that are directly only to the compounds in an OLED.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2020/0035905 hereinafter "Lee"). Note that a machine-generated translation of Lee is provided with this office action.
Regarding instant claims 1, Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device named Example 14 with the following characteristics:
An ITO transparent electrode;
The compound HI-A forming a hole injection layer;
The compound HT-A and the compound HT-Bas the hole transport layer;
Compound 18 and the compound H1 are two hosts that form the emitting layer wherein compound 18 is the host material, shown below (Description pg 93);
The compound ET-B and Liq form the electron transport and injection layer;
Al forms the cathode on the electron injection layer (Description pg 95-97, Table 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
900
1317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound 18 of Lee, above, is a compound of the claimed chemical formula 1 wherein:
R1 and R2 are each a C6 aryl group;
X is S and Y is N;
b is 0;
L1 is a single bond and a is 1;
Ar is a fluorenyl group.
Therefore, the device Example 14 anticipates claim 1, 6, and 8.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claims 1, 6, and 8 described above (KR 2020/0035905 hereinafter "Lee"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the device Example 14 that contains the compound 18 that reads on the claims 1, 6, and 8 as described above. Lee teaches additional compounds including the triazine-benzoxazole compound shown below (¶ [0114], pg 102 col II row III).
PNG
media_image3.png
996
1797
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The compound of Lee shown above is a compound of
R1 and R2 are each a C6 aryl group;
X is O and Y is N;
b is 0;
L1 is a single bond and a is 1;
Ar is a fluorenyl group;
Is represented by Chemical formula 1a.
Lee teaches the compound above; however, Lee fails to teach a specific organic light-emitting device that includes the above compound. Lee teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is in the light-emitting layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the light-emitting layer with the device structure of anode, hole transport layer, light-emitting layer containing the above triazine-benzoxazole compound and H1 as hosts, electron transport layer, and cathode.
The resulting Modified Device of Lee 1 containing the triazine-benzoxazole compound reads on instant claim 2 where the compound is represented by chemical formula 1a.
PNG
media_image4.png
591
1785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 2020/0035905) applied to claims 1, 2, 6 and 8 as described above in view of Spindler et al. (US 8,877,350 B2), hereinafter “Spindler”).
Lee teaches the Modified Device of Lee 1 containing the triazine-benzoxazole compound that reads on instant claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 as described above that teaches an organic material layer that includes a first stack including a first light emitting layer including a compound represented by instant chemical formula 1 as a host compound. The Modified Device of Lee 1 fails to teach an organic light-emitting device that contains a second stack including a second light emitting layer.
Spindler teaches an organic light-emitting device including a substrate, an anode, a cathode, and multiple light emitting layers including a first and second light-emitting layers, with each light-emitting layer having at least one different material than the other layer (see abstract, col 2 ¶ [50] – [65]). Spindler teaches that the organic light-emitting device containing the structure above provides a white OLED device with improved color stability upon aging (pg 6, col 2, line 50-55).
Therefore, given the teachings of Lee in view of Spindler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a compound of Lee in the light-emitting layers of the organic light-emitting device of Spindler. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that possess the benefits of the compounds of Lee with higher efficiency, longer lifespan, and lower operating voltage with the device of Spindler offering a white OLED device with improved color stability upon aging (pg 6, col 2, line 50-55). See MPEP § 2143.1.(B).
The resulting Modified Device 2 of Lee and Spindler reads on claims 9, 12, and 14-15.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2021/0070717 A1). Note that claim 13 has been examined as an independent claim directed ONLY to the compounds listed in an organic light emitting device.
In the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices, Li teaches heteroaromatic compounds used in an organic light-emitting device including compounds 171 and 173 shown below (pg 64).
PNG
media_image5.png
665
1465
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound 171 is a triazine compound substituted two dibenzoxazole groups and a phenyl-benzoxazole group. Compound 173 is a triazine compound substituted with two substituted phenyl groups and a phenyl-benzoxazole group. Li does not particularly limit the aryl groups around the triazine to substituted phenyl and dibenzoxazole. Li defines the aryl groups substituting the triazine as substituted or unsubstituted arylene with 6 carbon atoms. Therefore, a dibenzoxazole group, an unsubstituted phenyl group, and a phenyl-benzoxazle groups are known and acceptable groups substituting the triazine compound of Li.
Li teaches that the organic compound with triazine and benzoxazole as the core was applied to fabrication of OLED light-emitting device, the light extraction efficiency was improved significantly and both brightness and efficiency of the device were improved under the same current density and the service life of the OLED device was prolonged (¶ [0126]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a dibenzoxazole group with an unsubstituted phenyl group in the compound 171 of Li in the light-emitting device of Li, based on the teachings of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with high brightness and efficiency with a long service life, as taught by Li (¶ [0126]).
The resulting modified compound reads on compound H85 of instant claims 13 and 16.
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 LUCAS Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Fridays 7:45 am to 12:00 pm.
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.
/L.Q.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights