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 February 11, 2026.
Claims 1, 13 – 16, 18 and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee does not disclosure any examples having the claimed bonding position between the two carbazole groups. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Formula (1) of Lee teaches unspecified bonding positions between the two carbazole groups. While Applicant correctly notes that Formulae 2 – 4 do not teach the specific carbazole bonding positions currently claimed, Examiner notes that the invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Applicant argues that Comparative example compound A of the present application has the same binding position as compound C-2 described in Lee, but that in Table 2, it is shown that the example compounds have a remarkable effect compared to comparative example compound A. Applicant notes that Examples 1 to 4, each using a compound according to claim 1 with the meta-substitution at the linker show improved driving voltage, luminescence efficiency, and maximum external quantum efficiency than Examples 5 and 6 and Comparative Example 1, lacking the meta-substitution. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data shown in the table is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that claim 1 does not require the use of the compound as a host material in an emission layer of a device or require the use of the compound with an iridium-based dopant, as in the Examples of the instant specification. Examiner further notes that independent claim 13 is directed to a compound, not the use of the compound in a device, the properties of the corresponding device being claimed as being unexpectedly superior.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed January 23, 2026 have been reviewed. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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 and 13 – 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, this is a π-electron rich C6 cyclic group as required by claim 14; 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 and 13 – 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 and 13 – 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 and 13 – 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
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