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
The applicant's amendment of 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, and 14 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The objections to claims 1 and 14 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahn et al. US-20230129854-A1 and the rejection of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. US-20230129854-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn due to a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the Ahn reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made No et al. WO-2021215742-A1.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on page 39 of the reply dated 04/09/2026 with respect to the rejections over Ahn et al. US-20230129854-A1 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the applicant's statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) stablishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the Ahn reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. The rejections have been withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made No et al. WO-2021215742-A1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by No et al. WO-2021215742-A1 (see English language equivalent US-20230150982-A1 referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14-19, No discloses an organic light emitting device including one or more organic material layers provided between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein one or more layers of the organic material layers include the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (¶ [0018]) and further including a heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 (¶ [0019]), as a host of a light emitting layer (¶ [0031], ¶ [0215]). No discloses examples of the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 in paragraph [0151] including, for example, compound 1-1
PNG
media_image1.png
285
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to 1-4 (page 10), and compound 1-11 (page 12). Several of the compounds of No meet the claimed Formula 1-2. For example, the compound 1-1 meets the claimed Formula 1-2, wherein:
X3 to X5 are each N; and
R5 and R6 are each an unsubstituted heteroaryl of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms (a carbazolyl group) and R7 is a substituted o-biphenyl group (an o-biphenyl group substituted with a phenyl group).
No discloses examples of the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 in paragraph [0211] which meet the claimed Formula H-1 including compound 3-1
PNG
media_image2.png
203
252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 96), which corresponds to claimed compound 1-11.
It is noted that a claimed nitrogen-containing compound represented by Formula 1-1 is not required to be present.
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 6, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. WO-2021215742-A1 (see English language equivalent US-20230150982-A1 referred to herein) as applied to claims 1, 5, and 14 above.
Regarding claim 6, 9, and 20, No teaches the device as described above with respect to claims 1, 5, and 14.
No does not exemplify a compound of No's Chemical Formula 1 wherein at least one group in the positions corresponding to R5 to R7 is a group represented by one of claimed Formula 8-1 to Formula 8-5.
For example, the compound 1-1
PNG
media_image1.png
285
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
differs from the clamed compound wherein at least one group in the positions corresponding to R5 to R7 is a group represented by one of claimed Formula 8-1 to Formula 8-5 in that the multiple Z1 phenyl groups are linearly substituted instead of substituted in a branched manner. That is, the compound differs in that the terminal phenyl is substituted on the other phenyl instead of on the phenyl group directly bonded to the triazine group. However, No teaches wherein b may be 2, as in the compound above, and teaches wherein multiple Z1 may be substituted to L1 in a branched manner (see for examples compound 1-11, page 12).
Given the general formula and teachings of No, 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 compound 1-1 wherein the multiple Z1 phenyl groups are substituted in a branched manner instead of linearly, that is, wherein the phenyl bonded directly to the triazine group has two phenyl substituents. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by No's Chemical Formula 1 in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a host in the light emitting layer of the device of No and possess the properties taught by No. 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.
The modified compound of No corresponds to the claimed compound
PNG
media_image3.png
232
228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. WO-2021215742-A1 (see English language equivalent US-20230150982-A1 referred to herein) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chen et al. US-20190119312-A1 (hereinafter "Chen").
Regarding claims 12-13, No teaches the device as described above with respect to claim 1.
No does not specifically teach a device wherein the light emitting layer comprises a third compound represented by claimed Formula D-1. However, No teaches wherein the light emitting layer further comprises and a phosphorescent dopant (¶ [0216]), and that, as a material of the phosphorescent dopant, those known in the art may be used (¶ [0218]).
Chen teaches tetradentate platinum complexes comprising an imidazole/benzimidazole carbene for use as phosphorescent emissive compounds in an OLED that exhibit physical properties that can be tuned, such as sublimation temperature, emission color, and device stability, having a Formula I (¶ [0015]-[0016]), which are very efficient emitters and lead to higher device efficiencies (¶ [0236]). Chen teaches examples of the tetradentate platinum complexes having a Formula I in TABLE 1 which meet the claimed Formula D-1, including the compound
PNG
media_image4.png
313
336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 120), which corresponds to claimed compound PBD04.
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 incorporate the compound of Chen into as the dopant in the device of No, including the compound shown above, based on the teaching of Chen. The motivation for doing so would have been to tune sublimation temperature, emission color, and/or device stability and to obtain higher device efficiencies, as taught by Chen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shin US-20140231786-A1 teaches a compound of Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image5.png
182
312
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0050]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights