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 and Response to Restriction Requirement
Claims 1 and 3-17 are pending as of the response filed on 03/15/2026. Claim 2 is cancelled. Applicant’s original election of Group I claims is maintained. Claims 4, 7-13 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 14-15 are examined herein.
The examiner appreciates Applicant’s submission of an English translation of the foreign priority application. It is noted that the translated document does not have a label to ascertain that it belongs to application number KR10-2020-0165889 filed 12/01/2020. It appears that the Abstract (1 page), Specification (129 pages), Claims (42 pages) and Drawings (4 pages and 1 file), all dated 03/15/2026 possibly belong to the foreign priority application but cannot be ascertained since they are not labeled. The examiner suggests labeling all translated documents that belong to the foreign priority application for clarity of record.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the discussion of remarkable effects of the instant OLED compounds in pages 52-56, Table 3 of the response dated 03/15/2026 towards low driving voltages of 5.03 to 5.85 V and long lifetimes of 75 to 159 hours, in comparison to the compounds of the prior art is acknowledged and was found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment in consideration of the unexpected results, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the elected species over Hong in view of No. The claim amendments overcome any rejection to the additional anticipatory compounds taught by Hong, Zeng, Kang and some compounds of Kim (other compounds of Kim anticipate the instant compounds as outlined below).
The examiner has extended the search of Markush claim 1 to the additional species that anticipate the heterocyclic compound of Chemical Formula 1 as discussed in the rejections below, in accordance with MPEP 803.02(III)(A). Since some of these rejections are not necessitated by the amendments, this Office action is non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 03/16/2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings Objected To – Necessitated by amendment
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Necessitated by amendment
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim depends from claim 1 and recites the following compounds, compounds 1-233 (Pg. 18 of claim set dated 03/15/2026), 2-233 (Pg. 33 of claim set dated 03/15/2026) that broadens the scope of the claim, which is improper.
PNG
media_image1.png
129
85
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
141
104
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In 1-233 and 2-233 –(L1)a1-Ar1 is phenyl substituted with D, while instant claim1 requires –(L1)a1-Ar1 to be represented by Chemical Formula 4 or 5.
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 § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0194685 A1, 18 June 2020, hereinafter Kim, in the IDS).
Regarding instant claim 1, Kim teaches organic compounds for use in organic light emitting diode and an organic light emitting device (Abstract). Kim teaches an organic compound having the following Chemical Formula 1 (Paras. [0011]-[0013]).
PNG
media_image3.png
226
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches the following exemplary compounds (Para. [0056]).
PNG
media_image4.png
296
299
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
328
291
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The compounds of Kim fall within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 as in instant claim 1, wherein
X is O;
X1 is a direct bond;
R1-R6 and R8 are each hydrogen, R7 is cyano OR R1-R2, R4-R6 and R8 are each hydrogen and R3 and R7 are each C1 alkyl (methyl);
L1 is a direct bond;
-(L1)a1-Ar1 is represented by Chemical Formula 4, A is O.
the substitution position of -(L1)a1-Ar1 and
PNG
media_image6.png
209
159
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is 1-J,
PNG
media_image7.png
112
97
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, satisfies the proviso that when the substitution pattern is I-J, * is the linking position of
PNG
media_image6.png
209
159
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and ** is the linking position of -(L1)a1-Ar1.
Thus, the above compounds of Kim anticipate instant Chemical Formula 1 as in instant claim 1. The compounds of Kim further reads on claim 3 (wherein Chemical Formula 4 is represented by Chemical Formula 4-3).
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cha et al. (WO 2019/146946 A1, 01 August 2019, hereinafter Cha, cited to the attached English translation).
Regarding instant claim 1, Cha teaches an organic light-emitting device and compounds thereof (Abstract). Cha teaches the following exemplary compounds (Pg. 68).
PNG
media_image8.png
489
682
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The compounds of Cha fall within the scope of Chemical Formula 1 as in instant claim 1, wherein
X is O or S;
X1 is a direct bond;
R1-6 and R8 are each hydrogen;
R7 is unsubstituted C12 heteroring;
L1 is a direct bond;
-(L1)a1-Ar1 is represented by Chemical Formula 5, Ar21 and Ar22 are each C1 alkyl (methyl), R11-R14 are each hydrogen;
the substitution position of -(L1)a1-Ar1 and
PNG
media_image6.png
209
159
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is 1-H,
PNG
media_image9.png
86
74
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, the above compounds of Cha anticipate instant Chemical Formula 1 as in instant claim 1. The compounds of Cha further reads on claim 5 (wherein R7 is a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene group in certain compounds, R6 is a dibenzofuran in certain compounds, while the remaining R1-R8 groups are hydrogen).
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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0194685 A1, 18 June 2020, hereinafter Kim, in the IDS) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in view of No et al., (US 2020/0119285 A1, 16 April 2020, hereinafter No, of previous record).
The teachings of Kim are set forth in the anticipation rejection above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding instant claims 14-15, the disclosure of Kim anticipates a compound of Chemical Formula I as in claim 1.
Kim do not teach a composition for an organic material layer of an organic light emitting device, wherein the composition comprises the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and a heterocyclic compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 2 or a heterocyclic compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 3 as in instant claim 14; wherein, in the composition, the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1: the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 or the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 3 have a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1.
No teaches compositions for an organic material layer of an organic light emitting device comprising heterocyclic compounds represented by different chemical formulas at the same time (Para. [0015]). No teaches the exemplary compound, compound 305 (Pg. 203, first compound).
PNG
media_image10.png
242
385
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Compound 305 of No falls within the scope of Chemical Formula 2 of instant claim 14, wherein
Xa is O;
a is 0;
b is 0;
p is 0;
q is 0;
Ya is a hole transferring group, carbazole;
Za is an electron transferring group, substituted triazine.
No teaches a weight ratio of the heterocyclic compounds represented by different chemical formulas in the composition may be present from 1:10 to 10:1 (Para. [0144]). No teaches the use of a combination of heterocyclic compounds of different chemical formulas at the same time in an organic light emitting device lowers a driving voltage of the device, enhances light efficiency, and can enhance a lifetime property of the device with thermal stability of the compound (Para. [0017]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Kim and No to have formulated a composition comprising a combination of heterocyclic compounds of differing chemical formulas, to arrive at the composition of the instant claims with a reasonable expectation of success. The teachings of Kim anticipate the compound of Chemical Formula 1 as in claim 1. No teaches a heterocyclic compound of Chemical Formula 2. No teaches compositions for an organic material layer of an organic light emitting device comprising the heterocyclic compound represented by different chemical formulas at the same time. No teaches a weight ratio of the heterocyclic compounds represented by different chemical formulas in the composition may be present from 1:10 to 10:1. No teaches the use of a combination of heterocyclic compounds of different chemical formulas at the same time in an organic light emitting device lowers a driving voltage of the device, enhances light efficiency, and can enhance a lifetime property of the device with thermal stability of the compound.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a composition comprising a combination of heterocyclic compounds in a desired weight ratio of say, 1:10 to 10:1, for use in an organic light emitting device. The motivation being to enhance the light efficiency and thermal stability of the device (No, Para. [0017]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (WO 2019/146946 A1, 01 August 2019, hereinafter Cha) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, in view of No et al., (US 2020/0119285 A1, 16 April 2020, hereinafter No, of previous record).
The teachings of Cha are set forth in the anticipation rejection above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding instant claims 14-15, the disclosure of Cha anticipates a compound of Chemical Formula I as in claim 1. Cha teaches a host composition prepared by mixing two compounds in a ratio of 4:6 (Pg. 79, Example 1, third paragraph).
Cha do not explicitly teach wherein the composition comprises the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and a heterocyclic compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 2 or a heterocyclic compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 3 as in instant claim 14; wherein, in the composition, the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 1: the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 or the heterocyclic compound represented by Chemical Formula 3 have a weight ratio of 1:10 to 10:1.
No teaches compositions for an organic material layer of an organic light emitting device comprising heterocyclic compounds represented by different chemical formulas at the same time (Para. [0015]). No teaches the exemplary compound, compound 305 (Pg. 203, first compound).
PNG
media_image10.png
242
385
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Compound 305 of No falls within the scope of Chemical Formula 2 of instant claim 14, wherein
Xa is O;
a is 0;
b is 0;
p is 0;
q is 0;
Ya is a hole transferring group, carbazole;
Za is an electron transferring group, substituted triazine.
No teaches a weight ratio of the heterocyclic compounds represented by different chemical formulas in the composition may be present from 1:10 to 10:1 (Para. [0144]). No teaches the use of a combination of heterocyclic compounds of different chemical formulas at the same time in an organic light emitting device lowers a driving voltage of the device, enhances light efficiency, and can enhance a lifetime property of the device with thermal stability of the compound (Para. [0017]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Cha and No to have formulated a composition comprising a combination of heterocyclic compounds of differing chemical formulas, to arrive at the composition of the instant claims with a reasonable expectation of success. The teachings of Cha anticipate the compound of Chemical Formula 1 as in claim 1. No teaches a heterocyclic compound of Chemical Formula 2. No teaches compositions for an organic material layer of an organic light emitting device comprising the heterocyclic compound represented by different chemical formulas at the same time. No teaches a weight ratio of the heterocyclic compounds represented by different chemical formulas in the composition may be present from 1:10 to 10:1. No teaches the use of a combination of heterocyclic compounds of different chemical formulas at the same time in an organic light emitting device lowers a driving voltage of the device, enhances light efficiency, and can enhance a lifetime property of the device with thermal stability of the compound.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a composition comprising a combination of heterocyclic compounds in a desired weight ratio of say, 1:10 to 10:1, for use in an organic light emitting device. The motivation being to enhance the light efficiency and thermal stability of the device (No, Para. [0017]).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMAJA S RAO whose telephone number is (571) 272-9918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 pm EDT.
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, Kortney L Klinkel can be reached on (571) 270-5239. 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.
/PADMAJA S RAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Prosecution Insights