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 23 July 2026. Claims 1 and 5 are amended and claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the specification set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 23 July 2026. The objection is maintained.
The figures provided in the amendment to the specification still contain informalities regarding the low quality images, provided below. For example, the intermediate C-(2) in compound I-55 could be interpreted as an “iodide” or a “methyl” group.
PNG
media_image1.png
831
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The objection to the claims as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 23 July 2026. The objection is maintained.
As set forth in the previous Office Action, claim 5 contained the informality wherein small, low-quality images of compound labels were unclear including, but not limited to, compounds 1-160. A screen shot is provided to demonstrate compounds exhibiting small, low-quality images with unclear connectivity.
PNG
media_image3.png
708
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As set forth in the previous Office Action, claim 10 contained the informality wherein small, low-quality images of compound labels were unclear including, but not limited to, compounds 4-76, 7-80, 4-84, and 4-88. In addition to the existing blurry compounds, the newly provided compounds in the amendment also have low resolution issues, shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
817
655
media_image4.png
Greyscale
One possible way to address the issue of claims 5 and 10 is, for example, to provide the compounds in a grid of only three columns instead of four columns in order to enlarge the size of each image.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR20190058748, hereinafter "Kim") is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 23 July 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO2020032428, hereinafter "Park") is maintained.
The rejection of claim 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20190058748, hereinafter "Kim") in view of Woo et al. (KR20200052239, hereinafter "Woo") is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 23 July 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 23 July 2026 with respect to claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference of Kim et al. (KR20190058748, hereinafter “Kim”) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument filed 23 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the Park reference (WO 2020/032428), applicant points out that Compound 2-94 would require a multi-step, selective reconstruction that is viewed as the product of impermissible hindsight. However, the Compound 2-94 was used as a teaching compound that shows the different connectivity and bonding patterns possible between a heteroaromatic group to the triazine core including bonding at the instant A1/B1 position as well as the position wherein m and n are different in instant Am-Bn. The compound 2-90 of Park would only require one modification wherein the direct bond between the dibenzofuran and the triazine is attached at position 1 instead of 2.
Applicant argues the non-obviousness of Compound 1-25 is further confirmed by the unexpected results provided in the affidavit provided on 23 July 2026. Applicant provides data on driving voltage, efficiency, color coordinate, and lifetime for the Example 59 containing the instant compound 1-25 and Comparative Example 38 containing Compound Q comparable to the compound 2-90 of Park.
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires 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).
The data shown in affidavit containing Supplemental Experimental Data-3 is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that the data is shown for the use of a compound in the light emitting layer of a device, whereas the claimed is directed to a compound. The improved properties of Driving Voltage, Efficiency, Color Coordinate, and Lifetime are shown when the compound is used in a light-emitting layer of an OLED and with other particular compounds present in the same layer, such as a particular dopant (Affidavit ¶ [7]). None of these limitations are required by claims 1-2 and 4-5. No evidence has been provided to show that the unexpected results would be present for the use of the compound in other layers or with other compounds present in the same layer. Further, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention of claims 1-2 and 4 because the data provides results for the compound 1-25 featuring N-Het as N-1, Ar as substituted C6 aryl or “deuterated phenylene”, and A1-B2; whereas the scope of claims 1-2 and 4 go far beyond the provided data in that the claims encompass N-Het including N-2, Ar including a broad number of substituted or unsubstituted aryl listed, and Am-Bn may be any combination of 1, 2, 3, or 4 where m and n are different.
The data shown in affidavit containing Supplemental Experimental Data-3 is not a comparison to the closest prior art with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that Example 59 and Comparative Example 38 are evaluated under the same conditions as Experimental Example 1 wherein the light emitting layer contains a compound following Table 8 as a single host combined with a dopant (instant specification pg 87-88). Further, the claimed device in instant claim 6 only requires an organic material layer provided between the first and second electrodes wherein the organic material layer includes the heterocyclic compound of claim 1 (instant claim 6); therefore, claim 6 may encompass compositions, such as systems with multiple hosts, so long as the device includes a heterocyclic compound of claim 1. Park teaches that the organic light-emitting device of Park contains multiple hosts including a first, second, and third host compound represented by the Chemical Formula 1, 2, and 3 respectively (claim 1). Park also suggests that a device containing two host materials will outperform a device with one host material by 30% in lifetime performance (¶ [575], comparative examples 1 & 3); and that a device containing three host materials further outperforms any of the devices with two or less host materials. For example, the difference in lifetime performance between the least performant three host device of Park’s invention performs 74% better than the best performing device containing one host (¶ [575], comparative example 1 and device 1). Therefore, an organic light-emitting device containing one host material and an organic light-emitting device containing three host materials, even if both devices containing the same heterocyclic material, would not represent a comparison to the closest prior art due to the effect of the other host materials on the performance of the device.
Applicant’s argument filed 23 July 2026 with respect to claims 9-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference of Kim et al. (KR20190058748, hereinafter “Kim”) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In addition, the data provided in the Affidavit provided on 23 July 2026 containing Supplemental Experimental Data-1 provides examples wherein R1 and R2 are selected from naphthalene, perylene, triphenylene, phenyl. Thus, new rejections are necessitated based on the amendment wherein R1 and R2 are selected from the amended limitations.
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 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO2020032428, hereinafter "Park").
Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with Notice of Reference Cited dated 27 April 2026.
Park teaches in the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices a heterocyclic compound for use in an organic light-emitting device of Chemical Formula 2, shown below (¶ [9] – [12]).
Park further teaches specific compounds such as Compounds 2-90 and 2-94, which are compounds of Park’s Chemical Formula 2, featuring a triazine core substituted by dibenzofuran and/or dibenzothiophene (¶ [189] – [195]). Compound 2-90 features a carbazole attached to the triazine at the 2-position whereas compound 2-94 features a carbazole attached to the triazine core via a phenyl linker, shown below.
Therefore, dibenzofuran attached to the triazine core at various substitutions including 1- and 3-positions are a known and acceptable Ar group for the Chemical Formula 2 of Park. In addition, a deuterated phenyl substituted carbazole, or “9-C6D5-carbazole” as shown above, attached to the triazine core at the 2-positions is also a known and acceptable Ar group for the Chemical Formula 2 of Park.
Park further teaches that organic light-emitting devices containing compounds of Chemical Formula 2 exhibit an improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan (¶ [577]).
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 within the compound 2-90 of Park the 1-dibenzofuran with a 3-dibenzofuran. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a device with an improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifespan as taught by Park.
PNG
media_image5.png
389
396
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Modified Compound of Park reads on instant claims 1-2 and 4 wherein:
X1 to X3 are N;
N-Het is Chemical Formula N-1 wherein;
R1 is H;
Ar is substituted C6 aryl or “deuterated-phenylene”;
Het-1 is Chemical Formula H-1 wherein;
Y1 is O;
A2 is a bond to Chemical Formula 1;
A1 and A3-A4 is H;
Het-2 is Chemical Formula H-2;
Y2 is O;
B1 is a bond to Chemical Formula 1;
B2-B4 is H;
Chemical Formula 1 bonds are represented as A1-B2 wherein;
M and n are 2 and 1 respectively.
Therefore, the Modified Compound of Park reads on claims 1-2 and 4-8.
Regarding claims 6-8, Park teaches an organic light-emitting device Example 1 containing an electrode, a light-emitting layer containing a host material represented by Chemical Formula 1-3, and a cathode (¶ [550]- [554]). Park teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound of Chemical Formula 1-3 is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the Modified Compound of Park in the organic layer with the device structure of electrode, light-emitting layer as Park demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The resulting Modified Device of Park reads on claims 6-8.
Regarding claims 9-11, Park teaches the compound Ref-3, shown below that is a compound used as either host 1 or host 2 in the light emitting layer of the organic light-emitting device of Park, shown below (¶ [571] – [575], Table 10).
PNG
media_image6.png
1233
677
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ref-3 of Park
The compound Ref-3 of Park is a compound of Chemical Formula 3 in instant claim 9 wherein Ar31 is C6 aryl; Ar32 is substituted C6 aryl; R31 and R32 are H; and Ref-3 of Park is the same as compound 3-4 in instant claim 10.
Park teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and the compound is Ref-3 is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use both the compound Ref-3 and the Modified Compound of Park in the organic layer with the device structure of anode, organic layer, and cathode as Park demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches that the first host and second host in the light-emitting layer is mixed in a weight ratio of 5:3 that reads on the claimed weight ratio of claim 12 of 1:10 to 10:1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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