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 26 June 2026. Claims 1 and 17 are amended and claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1-9, 11-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the Specification as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 26 June 2026. The objection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 26 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by You et al. (CN113185516A, hereinafter "You") as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 26 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over You et al. (CN113185516A, hereinafter "You") as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 26 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20200107339, hereinafter "Lee") is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 26 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20200107339, hereinafter "Lee") in view of Dolzhenko et al. (RSC Adv., 2013, 3, 15850–15855, hereinafter "Dolzhenko") is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 26 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20200107339, hereinafter "Lee") in view of Liao et al. (US2003/0170491A1, hereinafter "Liao") is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 26 June 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the You et al. reference (CN113185516A, hereinafter "You"), applicant points out that You does not read on amended claim 1 wherein at least one of R22 or R23 is represented by Formula 3 along with the rest of the amended limitations. New rejections based on You rely on a different embodiment or a reinterpretation of the reference. As shown in the rejection below, You still renders obvious the claimed invention. With respect to the Liao references, applicant points out that amended claim 1 would not have been obvious over You and Liao. New rejections based on Liao rely on a different embodiment or a reinterpretation of the reference. As shown in the rejection below, Liao still renders obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding all other Applicant’s arguments, the arguments have been fully considered and are moot due to Applicant’s amendment filed 18 June 2026. New grounds of rejection do not rely on the other references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (CN113185516A, hereinafter "You").
You teaches a multilayer organic light-emitting diode (OLED) device containing two electrodes, wherein between the two electrodes are layers including but not limited to a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light-oriented light-emitting layer, and electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer (Description pg 14-15). More specifically, You teaches specific embodiments of the OLED device including Device Number 3 including a layer with compounds mCBP and L77 between the electrodes, shown below (Description Table 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound mCBP of You is a compound of instant Formula 1 wherein:
R13 is H;
b13 is 4;
m1 is 2;
R11 is H;
b11 is 4;
R12 is H;
b12 is 4 and;
R14 is carbazole.
You teaches the Compound L77 of You, shown above, wherein the positions corresponding to R22 and R23 in the instant Formula 2 are phenyl. You does not necessarily limit R23 as phenyl: You defines B1 in the General Formula II as selected from a group of general formulas including a formula containing a phenyl substituted with carbazole (Description pg 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
789
1503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
You teaches that an OLED device that contains a compound of the Formula II of You exhibits excellent performance (Description pg 1). You teaches the above; however, You does not teach a compound of instant Formula 2 wherein Ar3 is a C1-C60 heterocyclic group.
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 further include the B1 as carbazole-substituted phenyl in Compound L77 of You in the light-emitting device of You, based on the teachings of You. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with excellent performance, as taught by You (Description pg 1).
The resulting Modified Compound L77 of You is shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Modified Compound L77 of You is a compound of instant Formula 2 wherein;
R21 is carbazole substituted with;
R10a is tert-butyl;
b21 is 2 and;
R22 is phenyl;
R23 is Formula 3;
L3 is C6 carbocylic group “phenyl”;
A3 is 1;
Ar3 is C12 heterocyclic group “carbazole”.
You teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer in the Device Number 3 of You. It would have been obvious to use the Modified Compound L77 in the organic layer with the device structure of anode, organic layer, cathode as You demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the resulting Modified Device Number 3 containing the Modified Compound L77 of You reads on instant claims 1-2 and 7.
Regarding claim 3, the light-emitting layer contains a host and guest doping system (Description pg 1). You teaches that mCBP is the first compound of the main or “host” material and the L compound is used as the second compound.
Regarding claim 4, You teaches that the invention provides a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material with a structure of General Equation (I) and (II). Compound L77 of Device Number 3 of You is a compound of General Equation 2 wherein B1 and B2 are phenyl and B3 is phenyl connected to a substituted carbazole. Therefore, Modified Device Number 3 of You reads on instant claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, You teaches that Device Number 3 has an ITO substrate and bottom emission glass of a certain size, and that the light transmittance of the film is 90% @ 550nm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ITO film and bottom emission glass would have a broad-spectrum visible light transmittance, normally above 85% with a sensitive wavelength of 550 nm where light transmittance is as high as 90% and above (see Zhu et al. Ceramics International 47 (2021) 16980–16985). Therefore, Modified Device Number 3 has an ITO substrate and bottom emission glass that is technically “configured to emit blue light” by being configured to allow light in the blue part of the spectrum to pass through provided that there is a combination of materials that can generate the above blue light.
Regarding claim 5, the teaching of You appears silent with respect to the property of color and emission wavelength of the Device Number 3 of You including compound L77. The prior art recites that compounds similar to L77 emit light in the blue region (Jingsong et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal 466 (2023) 142910, hereinafter “Jingsong”). Jingsong teaches compound 23alC-TAZTRZ, shown below, having a sizeable emission spectrum for both fluorescence and phosphorescence between 450 and 500 nm (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
883
1948
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Compound L77 of You and compound 23alC-TAZTRZ of Jingsong are similar in structure except the substitution of the carbazole: compound Modified L77 features two tert-butyl groups and an additional carbazole substitution whereas compound 23alC-TAZTRZ features a condensed indole ring system on the carbazole. Since Jingsong teaches the blue emission of compound 23alC-TAZTRZ, a same structure except the substitution of the carbazole as disclosed by You, the property of blue emission is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 6, You teaches that Modified Device Number 3 is an organic light emitting diode device with the following layered structure: ITO or “anode”, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, photo-oriented light emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer, followed by the cathode (Description pg 14-15). Therefore, Modified Device Number 3 of You reads on instant claim 6 wherein the hole transport region comprises the combination of hole injection layer and hole transport layer and the electron transport region includes the combination of an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer.
Regarding claim 8, You teaches compound mCBP of Device Number 3, as applied to claim 1 above, which is a compound of instant claim 1 Formula 1 wherein R14 can be represented by Formula R14-9 wherein Z11 is H, Z12 is H, and e4 is 4 (Description pg 14-15).
Regarding claim 9, You teaches compound mCBP of Device Number 3, as applied to claim 1 above, which is a light emitting compound of instant claim 8 wherein m1 is 2 and R14 is a group represented by Formula R14-9 (Description pg 14-15).
Regarding claims 11-14, You teaches Modified Compound L77 of Modified Device Number 3, as applied to claim 1 above, which is a compound of instant claim 1 Formula 2 wherein R21 is phenyl, L3 is a pi electron-rich C6 cyclic group “phenyl”, and Ar3 is the unsubstituted C12 heterocyclic group “carbazole” (Description pg 14-15). Modified Compound L77 is a compound of instant claim 13 wherein Ar3 is represented by 8-16. Modified Compound L77 is a compound of instant claim 14 represented by Formula 2-1 wherein: R22 is phenyl; R21a, R21b, R21d, and R21e are H; and R21c and R23 are each a group represented by Formula 3.
Regarding claim 15, You discloses Modified Device Number 3 containing compounds mCBP and Modified Compound L77, as applied to claim 1 above, wherein: R11 to R13 is each independently H; R14 is represented by 5-20; R21 is represented by 5-20 wherein Z31 and Z32 are C4 alkyl; R22 is represented by 5-1 and R23 is represented by 5-20 (Description pg 14-15).
Regarding claim 16, You teaches Modified Device Number 3 containing compound mCBP, as applied to claim 1 above, which is the same as instant compound HT-07 (Description pg 14-15).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (CN113185516A, hereinafter "You") as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-16 in view of Liao et al. (US2003/0170491A1, hereinafter "Liao").
You teaches the Modified Device Number 3 containing the Modified Compound L77 that reads on claims 1-9 and 11-16 as described above. You is silent as to the electronic apparatuses that may comprise the modified device.
In the pertinent art of organic electroluminescent devices, Liao teaches that stacked organic electroluminescent “units” may form an organic electroluminescent “device” such as a lamp and full color displays such as cell phones, PDAs, computer screens, and television sets (¶ [0001] – [0015], [0070]). Liao teaches that the OLED device may be configured in an active-matrix display wherein an array of OLED devices are formed in contact with thin film transistors such that each pixel is activated and controlled independently (¶ [0069]). Liao teaches that electrodes are provided between OLED units as a means of independently controlling each individual OLED unit (¶ [0005] – [0055]). Liao teaches that in full color displays where white light is generated, an RGB filter may be used to simply manufacturing (¶ [0073]). Liao teaches that stacked OLED devices can employ optical effects in order to enhance properties including colored or neutral density filters over the display and providing a polar medium over the display (¶ [0195]). Liao teaches that the benefits of his OLED units and OLED devices is to provide an apparatus with high luminance efficiency and lifetime, lowering optical losses, and higher brightness (¶ [0016] – [0034]).
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 the interlayer in the stacked OLED units and device of Liao with the interlayer containing the Modified Compound L77 in the Modified Device Number 3 of You. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the luminance efficiency and lifetime of an OLED apparatus as taught by Liao.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Liao, 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 the interlayer compounds of Liao and Lee because Liao teaches the variable may suitably be selected as the interlayer containing compound 72 and CBP of Lee. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as dopant/host compounds in the interlayer comprising an emission layer of the OLED apparatus of Liao and possess the benefits taught by Liao. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 17, the closest prior art is considered to be You et al. (CN113185516A, hereinafter "You") and Lee et al. (KR20200107339, hereinafter "Lee") in view of Dolzhenko et al. (RSC Adv., 2013, 3, 15850–15855, hereinafter "Dolzhenko"). Claim 17 requires that:
For Formula 2;
R22 is H;
R23 is substituted C12 heterocyclic group “carbazole”.
You teaches a compound of Formula 2 wherein R23 is substituted C6 aryl or “phenyl.” Lee teaches a compound of Formula 2 wherein R23 is C6 aryl or “phenyl.” Dolzhenko teaches a fused heterocylic compound with the core of Formula 2 wherein R22 is H. The prior art as a whole does not teach or suggest a motivation, in the group of R23 for Formula 2, to substitute a C12 heterocyclic group “carbazole” for a “phenyl” group as required by claim 17.
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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/L.Q.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights