DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 17, 2026 has been entered.
The claim amendment dated May 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 10 were amended. Claims 7 and 8 are cancelled claims. Claims 1-6 and 9-16 are pending.
The rejection of claims 8 and 9 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the claim amendment dated May 19, 2026.
The rejection of claim 8 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of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 8.
The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110416422 A is withdrawn due to the claim amendment.
The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110416422 A in view of Youn et al. (US 2018/0166644) is withdrawn due to the amendment.
The rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110416422 A in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2017/0025621 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 3 do not include a period at the end of each claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, and 10 are 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.
Claim 2 recites Formulas “1-1 to 1-7”, but only three chemical structures are provided. Accordingly, formulas 1-4 to 1-7 are considered indefinite.
Also, claim 2 shows variables b’ and d’, but these subscripts are undefined. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites Formulas “1-8 to 1-10”, but only two structures are provided. Accordingly, formula 1-10 is considered indefinite.
Claim 10 recites Formulas in lines 2 and 3 of the claim, but many more chemical structures are provided in the claim than listed in the text in lines 2 and 3. Accordingly, the intended, included compounds are unclear.
Clarification and/or correction are required.
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 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110416422 A (listed on 11/08/2022 IDS; note that a machine translation was provided with previous office communication and is referred to in the below citations) in view of Ha et al. (US 2020/0343450 A1).
CN ‘422 teaches materials for forming a layered organic electroluminescent device. A first material may include at least the below HT1-100 or HT1-102 (translation copy page 10) per instant Formula 1 where instant X is oxygen:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
136
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
A host for the light emitting layer may include at least compound EMH-19 (page 23-24 translation):
PNG
media_image3.png
138
210
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Device structures are described at page 32-36 of translation where HT1 materials are used in a hole transport layer and EMH material is used as host in a light emitting layer. While CN ‘422 teaches above triazine derivative EMH-19, it is not seen where CN ‘422 teaches a triazine derivative identical to recited instant Formula 2 compounds. In analogous art, Ha et al. teaches Formula 3 compounds for a device (see abstract on page 2) and more specifically a Formula 3 compound identical to CN ‘422 EMH-19 at the top of Ha et al. page 110 and also the following Formula 3 compound (see Ha page 193), which is the same as instant compound “4-83”:
PNG
media_image4.png
296
240
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(same as instant “4-83”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the above Ha compound from page 193 in place of CN ‘422 compound EMH-19 in a device according to CN ‘422, because Ha teaches the above compound from page 193 as similarly useful as a Formula 3 compound the same as CN ‘422 compound EMH-19. One would expect to achieve a functional device according to CN ‘422 containing materials as disclosed by CN ‘422 and Ha et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, above HT1-100 meets the requirements of instant Formula 1-1.
Regarding claim 3, above HT1-100 meets the requirements of instant Formula 1-8.
Regarding claim 4, above HT1-102 meets the requirements of a compound with an instant B-1 group comprising V1 and V2 as including a single bond and NR10 respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the R1 to R4 instant groups are not required to be present as a to d may be zero. Additionally, it is noted that general formula (1) teaches Z of the core ring group maybe contain substituents R6 that connect to form a ring structure (see translation copy page 4).
Regarding claim 6, note that at least above HT1-100 is the same as instant compound 1-11.
Regarding claim 9, at least above compound the same as instant “4-83” appears to meet at least instant group A-1 of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, note that at least above Ha et al. compound of page 193 is the same as instant compound 4-83.
Regarding claim 11, the “HT1” compounds are used in a hole transport layer of a device (see translation page 2).
Regarding a layer of claim 12, the devices include a substrate layer (see translation page 2) and also includes a package structure (see page 25).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110416422 A in view of Ha et al. (US 2020/0343450 A1), and in further view of Youn et al. (US 2018/0166644).
CN ‘422 and Ha et al. are relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, CN ‘422 teaches a device may be comprised of stacked structures (see translation page 25-26), but appears silent with respect to forming a specific stack per instant claim 13 and a charge generating layer between the stacks per claim 14. In analogous art, Youn et al. teaches tandem OLEDs (see figure 1 and layer descriptions in par. 31-38) have a high level of luminescence and longer lifespan due to higher reliability compared to single OLEDs (par. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed an organic light emitting display comprising multiple organic material layers separated by a charge generating layer between organic layer stacks as taught by Youn et al. and including layers as taught by CN ‘422 in view of Ha, because one would expect to achieve a display having high luminescence and long lifespan with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110416422 A in view of Ha et al. (US 2020/0343450 A1), and in further view of Suzuki et al. (US 2017/0025621 A1).
CN ‘422 and Ha et al. are relied upon as set forth above for the rejection of claim 1.
CN ‘422 teaches a light emitting device, but appears silent with respect to describing specifically the inclusion of a control unit for driving the display device. In analogous art, Suzuki et al. teaches a light emitting element (see abstract) that teaches including a control unit for a light device (see Suzuki et al. claims 15 and 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed an organic light emitting display as taught by CN ‘422 in view of Ha and to have further included a control unit for driving a display as taught by Suzuki et al., because one would expect to achieve an operational display with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lv, Xialei, et al. "Blue TADF emitters based on indenocarbazole derivatives with high photoluminescence and electroluminescence efficiencies." ACS applied materials & interfaces 11.11 (2019): 10758-10767.
The reference discusses polycyclic triazine derivatives for use in electroluminescence devices (see Scheme 1, page 10760). The reference is considered relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights