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 July 28, 2026.
The amendments to the specification, filed July 28, 2026, are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 5 – 12, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 16 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 18 and 19 have been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 2, 5 – 12, 15, and 20 – 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed April 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the objection to claims 9 – 14, 16 and 17 as set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2026. Claims 13, 14, and 17 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 17 and 20 – 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2025. Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 16, and 17 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 5 – 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2026. Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 13, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to 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 as set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2026. Claims 13, 16 and 17 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu as set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu 2 as set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 3 – 12, 15 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu 2 as set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu 2 and further in view of Liu as set forth in the office action filed April 29, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5 – 12, 15, and 20 – 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 5, 6, and 8 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.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 all recite language “at least of all.” This renders the claims indefinite because it immediately precedes language surrounding the number of carbon-hydrogen bonds that are replaced by carbon-diplogen bonds. It is unclear if the claims are intending to recite a minimum number of replacements or requiring that full replacement of all the carbon-hydrogen bonds.
For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as only requiring a total of the claimed number of replacements.
Claim 5 recites that the first, third, fourth and sixth-membered ring independently comprise at least one of… a nitrogen containing heterocycle having the side chain.” The phrase “the side chain,” lacks antecedent basis as no side chain has been previously defined. This renders the clam indefinite because it is not clear what group is being referred to and if the side chain is meant to require a particular structure or not.
For examination purposes, claim 5 is interpreted as not requiring a side chain.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected 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.
Claim 7 recites that the side chain is present in at least one of the first, third, fourth or sixth membered ring and that the side chain comprises pheny, biphenyl, naphthyl, carbazole, dibenzofuran, dibenzothiophene, dimethyl fluorene, diphenyl fluorene, and C1 – C10 alkyl. The fourth and sixth membered rings are part of the electron-type host material defined by the formula in claim 1. The fourth and sixth membered rings are defined as only containing C-D, nitrogen or C-Phenyl groups. Therefore, claim 7 appears to improperly broaden the list of substituents on the fourth and sixth membered rings and to fail to include all thel imitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent on claim 7.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5 – 12, 15, and 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US20170098778A1) in view of Lecloux (US20110101312A1) and Lui 2 (US20240206323A1).
As per claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 – 10, Oh teaches:
A luminescent layer, wherein the luminescent layer comprises a host material comprising a hole-type host material and an electron type host material ([0085 - 0086]: “The first compound includes a ring containing at least one nitrogen and thus may have a structure of easily accepting elections when an electric field is applied thereto and thus bipolar characteristics in which electron characteristics are relatively strong as the injection amount of the electrons is increased. The second compound includes a carbazole moiety and thus may have relatively strong hole characteristics. When the first and second compounds are used together for an emission layer, charge mobility and stability may be increased, and thus luminous efficiency and life-span characteristics may be improved.” The first compound is interpreted as the claimed electron type host material and the second compound is interpreted as the claimed hole type host material.)
A guest material being doped in the host material ([0207]: “The emission layer may further include a dopant.”)
The electron-type host material comprises a triazine-type derivative, wherein a general structural formula of the triazine-type derivative is
PNG
media_image1.png
214
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Oh teaches that the first compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
228
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0013]). A particular compound within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 taught by Oh is compound A-129
PNG
media_image3.png
220
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on page 49. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X9. X11, X13, X14, X16 and X19 are all N and the remaining X groups are C-R7 wherein R7 is phenyl.
The hole-type host material comprises an indole-carbazole-type derivative (Oh teaches that the second compound may be represented by a combination of the moiety represented by Chemical Formula 3 and the moiety represented by Chemical Formula 4, which results in a compound of Chemical Formula 3-1
PNG
media_image4.png
188
298
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0160 – 0162]). A particular compound within the scope of Chemical Formula 3-1 is compound E-2
PNG
media_image5.png
194
310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0164]). This compound contains a first, second and third six-membered ring fused two nitrogen containing rings as required by claim 1. The rings are benzene rings as required by claim 5, with a first and second aryl group bonded to the nitrogen atoms of the two nitrogen containing five-membered rings as required by claim 6. The compound is represented by
PNG
media_image6.png
238
314
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 9 and
PNG
media_image7.png
138
196
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 10.)
Oh teaches that the second compound represented by Chemical Formula 3 and Chemical Formula 4 can be substituted with deuterium ([0027- 0031], but Oh does not specifically teach a compound with deuterium (the claimed diplogen atom).
Lecloux teaches deuterated indolocarbazole compounds are useful in electronic applications (Abstract). Lecloux teaches that the compounds have greatly improved properties, such as improved lifetimes when compared to analogous non-deuterated compounds ([0067]).
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 provide some deuterium substitutions, including deuterium substitutions on all of the positions on the first and last benzene ring of the indolocarbazole for a total of 8 deuterium atoms as required by claims 5, 6, and 8 – 10, to the indolocarbazole group of Oh, as allowed by the definitions of Oh, motivated by the desire to predictably improve the lifetime of the devices using the compounds, as taught by Lecloux ([0067]).
Oh does not teach:
Wherein an absolute value of a difference between an energy value of a HOMO of the hole-type host material and an energy value of a LUMO of the electron-type host material satisfies 2.4eV≤|HOMO-LUMO|≤3.2 eV
Liu 2 teaches OLEDs with emission layer comprises a first host and a second host (Abstract). This is similar to the composition of Oh. Liu 2 teaches that the difference between a LUMO energy level of the first host and HOMO energy level of the second host is 2.505 eV (Abstract). Lui 2 teaches that the HOMO and LUMO energy difference is greater than or equal to 2.505 eV, energy can effectively be transferred to the dopant, and thus the efficiency and lifespan may be improved ([0090]).
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 host materials, such that the claimed HOMO and LUMO relationship is met, motivated by the desire to predictably provide an OLED with improved efficiency and lifespan as taught by Liu 2 ([0090]).
Regarding the limitation, “wherein by the effect of an external energy, the host material is configured to be capable of forming an exciplex,” Examiner notes that the limitation is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches the same structures as those claimed, therefore the compounds are interpreted as being “configured to be capable of forming an exciplex” as claimed. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
As per claim 7, Oh teaches that R1 to R6 in Chemical Formula 1 can be selected from a substituted C6 aryl group ([0017]). Oh defines “substituted” as including replacements of at least one hydrogen atom by deuterium ([0084]). 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 replace one of the hydrogen atoms in the pendent phenyl rings of compound A-129 above and arrive at the claimed invention wherein the fourth sixth member ring comprises benzene ring having a side chain wherein the side chain is a phenyl where at least one carbon-hydrogen bond in the side chain is replaced by a carbon-diplogen bond.
Oh includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Oh 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 high efficiency and long lifespan in an organic optoelectronic device ([0010]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 11, Examiner is of the position that compounds can be chosen to meet the claimed limitations by adjusting the variables and substituents in the formulae. Furthermore, in [0126] of the specification as published, the instant specification teaches that by adjusting the relative position of two nitrogen containing five-membered rings in the phenyl group, i.e. when the relative position of the nitrogen atoms of the two nitrogen containing five-membered rings in the phenyl group has three carbon atoms therebetween, the conjugative effect of the neighboring sections of the indolocarbazole can be changed, whereby the highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO has a highest energy value. Therefore, the claimed relationship appears to be inherent and would necessarily be present in the compounds of Oh.
As per claim 12, in [0128] of the specification as published, the instant specification teaches that by adding a substituent in the same one general structural formula, i.e., increasing the molecular weight of the structure of the same one general structural formula, the conjugative effect of the neighboring sections of the indolocarbazole can be changed, whereby the highest occupied molecular orbital HOMO has a highest energy value. Therefore, the claimed relationship appears to be inherent and would necessarily be present in the compounds of Oh.
As per claim 15, in [0139] of the specification as published, the instant specification teaches that if all of the other groups are the same, an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of a structure having the side chain is less than an energy value of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO of a structure not having the side chain. Accordingly, by adding a substituent in the same one general structural formula, i.e., increasing the molecular weight of the structure of the same one general structural formula, the conjugative effect of the group directly connected to the triazinyl group can be changed, whereby the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital LUMO has a lowest energy value. Therefore, the claimed relationship appears to be inherent and would necessarily be present in the compounds of Oh.
As per claims 20 and 21, Oh teaches:
A light emitting device comprising an anode and a cathode, a luminescent layer disposed between the anode and the cathode ([0216]: “The organic optoelectronic device includes an anode and a cathode facing each other, and at least one organic layer interposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer includes the composition.”)
As per claim 22, Oh teaches:
A display apparatus, wherein the display apparatus comprises the light emitting device ([0012]: “Yet another embodiment provides a display device including the organic optoelectronic device.”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US20170098778A1) in view of Lecloux (US20110101312A1) and Lui 2 (US20240206323A1), as applied to claims 1, 5 – 12, 15, and 20 – 22 above and further in view of Liu (CN113969168A, using the previously provided machine translation).
As per claim 2, Lui 2 teaches that host materials are capable of forming an exciplex ([0087]). Lui 2 does not teach:
Wherein by the effect of an external energy, the host material is configured to be capable of forming an exciplex, wherein an energy-level difference between a singlet-state energy level and a triplet-state energy level of the exciplex satisfies 0eV≤|ΔEst|≤0.3eV
Liu teaches electroluminescent devices with a host material that is a mixture of a hole-type host and an electron-type host and that excitons are formed on the host material ([0002]). This is similar to the host materials of Oh. Liu teaches that when the difference between the singlet excited state energy and the triplet excited state energy of the excitocomplex formed is less than 0.3 eV, the excitocomplex has a TADF effect and allows for a reduced amount of dopant used, which decreases production costs ([0032]).
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 two host materials of Oh, such that the materials form an exciplex with an energy-level difference, such as that claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably ensure that the compounds create a TADF effect that allows for a reduced amount of dopant used and decreases production costs, as taught by Liu ([0032]).
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
