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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on May 27, 2026.
Claims 1, 13, 17, and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 14 – 16 have been canceled.
Claims 1 – 13 and 17 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that as amended, claims 1 and 13 correspond to the compounds of the Examples (compound 1, 2, 5, and 6) and therefore, as argued in the response on February 11, 2026, the inventive compounds provide unexpectedly improved luminescence efficiency and improved quantum efficiency. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b). With respect to claim 1 and requirement (ii), Examiner notes that the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention because the data is shown for the use of the compound as a host material in a device with an iridium-based dopant, requirements that are not presently claimed. With respect to claim 13 and requirement (ii), Examiner further notes that claim 13 is directed to a compound and the properties of the corresponding device are not seen as being commensurate in scope with claims directed to the compound.
Applicant argues that Lee’s exemplified compounds do not disclose or even suggest the claimed bonding positions between the two carbazole groups. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown below, Formula 1 of Lee does not restrict the bonding pattern of the carbazole groups. Therefore, Formula 1 of Lee encompasses all of the finite number of options of bonding arrangements between the two carbazole groups, including the particular bonding pattern claimed.
Applicant argues that the inherency claimed in claim 20 requires identical structures and that since Lee does not disclose substantially identical compounds, the triplet energy cannot be presumed inherent. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The modified compound of Lee in the rejection below reads on the claimed compound 1. Therefore, the property of triplet energy is presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112. A general statement from Applicant saying the property is not inherent is not seen as sufficient evidence that the composition does not possess the claimed property.
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 – 7, 9, 10, 13 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2016093584A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 5, 13 – 20, Lee teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron-blocking layer, or any combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a buffer layer, a hole-blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or any combination thereof, wherein the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 is comprised in the interlayer ([74 – 76]: “The organic electroluminescent device of the present invention may comprise a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer disposed between the first and second electrodes… One of the first and second electrodes may be an anode, and the other may be a cathode. The organic layer may comprise a light-emitting layer, and may further comprise at least one layer selected from a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, an interlayer, a hole blocking layer, an electron blocking layer, and an electron buffering layer. The organic electroluminescent compound of the present disclosure may be comprised in at least one of a light-emitting layer and a hole transport layer.”)
A heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
510
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
220
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([10]). A particular compound taught by Lee is compound C-2
PNG
media_image3.png
330
220
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([55]), which differs from the claimed formula in the bonding between the carbazole groups. However, as shown in Formula 1, Lee teaches that the bonding between the carbazole groups is variable and can be present in any of the positions on the phenyl ring, including the claimed bonding pattern. 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 move the bonding between the carbazole groups and arrive at the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein L1 is a single bond; L2 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, namely a group represented by L-2 wherein X11 to X15 are C(Z) and the Z atoms are hydrogen; a1 and a2 are both an integer of 1; R1, and R6 – R8 are all an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 17; b2 – b5 are each an integer of 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist. The compound is represented by Formula 1-2 in claim 18 and is the same as compound 1
PNG
media_image4.png
152
138
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in claim 19.)
Regarding the property of triplet (T1) energy level in claim 20, Lee is silent with respect to the claimed property. However, Lee teaches the same structure as disclosed by Application, therefore the property of triplet (T1) energy level is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. 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 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 results of organic electroluminescent devices with improved lifespan and high color purity (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Lee teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Lee as Lee demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claims 3 and 4, Lee teaches:
Wherein the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 is comprised in the emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a phosphorescent dopant, wherein the host is the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 ([76]: “When used in the light-emitting layer, the compound of Formula 1 may be comprised therein as a host material, and preferably a phosphorescent host material. Preferably, at least one dopant may be further comprised in the light emitting layer.”)
As per claim 6, Lee teaches:
The hole transport region comprises the electron-blocking layer and the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 is comprised in the electron-blocking layer (In [76], Lee teaches that the compound may be used in a hole transport layer. In [75], Lee teaches a device that contains hole transporting layer including hole injection layers, hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer. 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 select one of the small number of finite options of hole transporting layers for the compound, including the claimed electron-blocking layer, as the layer containing the compound of Formula 1.)
As per claim 7, Lee teaches:
At least one of the hole transport region or the emission layer comprises an arylamine-containing compound, an acridine-containing compound, a carbazole-containing compound, or any combination thereof (In Example 1, as described in [171], compound H-1
PNG
media_image5.png
102
116
media_image5.png
Greyscale
was used as a host material in the emission layer. This compound contains a carbazole containing compound as required by the claim.)
As per claim 9, Lee teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is to emit blue light with a maximum emission wavelength of 450nm or more and 475 nm or less (In [140], Lee teaches the device may emit blue light.)
As per claim 10, Lee teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device ([145]: “The organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure can be used for the manufacture of a display system or a lighting system.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2016093584A1) as applied to claims 1 – 7, 9, 10, 13 and 17 – 20 above, and further in view of Lee 2 (US20200295269A1)
As per claim 8, Lee does not teach:
Further comprising a first capping layer outside the first electrode and comprising the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1, a second capping layer outside the second electrode and comprising the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1; or the first capping layer and the second capping layer
Lee 2 teaches heterocyclic compounds containing carbazole groups and silicon groups, which is structurally similar to the compounds of Lee ([0118]). Lee 2 teaches that the compounds may be including in a hole transport region or an emission layer ([0125]). These are the same layers Lee teaches are suitable for the compounds of Lee. Lee 2 also teaches that the heterocyclic compounds comprising carbazole and silicon groups may be used as a material for a capping layer located outside the electrodes ([0125]).
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 compound of Lee in the capping layer as claimed, because Lee 2 teaches that silicon-carbazole compounds that are suitable for use in emission and hole transporting layers are also predictably suitable for use in capping layers ([0125]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2016093584A1) as applied to claims 1 – 7, 9, 10, 13 and 17 – 20 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1)
As per claim 11, Lee does not teach:
Further comprising a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Lee in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2016093584A1) as applied to claims 1 – 7, 9, 10, 13 and 17 – 20 above, and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim, Lee does not teach:
Further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of Lee because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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
