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 .
Claims 1-5, 7-16 and 18-21 are currently pending. Claims 6 and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1, 7-16 and 18-20 are currently amended. Claim 21 has been added as new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Neither the original specification or the substituted specification submitted on 05/11/2026 recite [Formula 1-2-1]:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, [Formula 1-2-2]:
PNG
media_image2.png
263
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, [Formula 1-2-3]:
PNG
media_image3.png
276
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, [Formula 1-2-4]:
PNG
media_image4.png
227
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, [Formula 1-2-5]:
PNG
media_image5.png
264
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, [Formula 1-2-6]:
PNG
media_image6.png
284
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and [Formula 1-2-7]:
PNG
media_image7.png
261
511
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as recited in newly amended claims 7 and 18. The compounds currently shown in claims 7 and 18 are narrower than the original claims 7 and 18 as well as those recited in the specification on paragraph [0020].
Neither the original specification or the substituted specification submitted on 05/11/2026 recite [Formula 1-3]:
PNG
media_image8.png
251
496
media_image8.png
Greyscale
as recited by newly amended claim 19. The compound currently shown in claim 19 are narrower than the original claim 19 well as those recited in the specification on paragraph [0027].
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 13 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. Formula 1-3:
PNG
media_image9.png
295
420
media_image9.png
Greyscale
as shown in claim 13 is outside the scope of Formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image10.png
283
370
media_image10.png
Greyscale
as recited in claim 1. Formula 1-3 is broader than Formula 1. Therefore , claim 13 does not further limit claim 1.
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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zink et al. (WO 2021/213972 A1) in view of Cho et al. (EP 3800681 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8-14, Zink et al. teach a light emitting device (OLED; page 1, lines 1-5; see abstract, claims and examples) teach a first electrode ( anode) ; a second electrode facing the first electrode ( cathode); and an emission layer EML ( page 17) disposed between the first and second electrodes ( see claim 14 and page 17, lines 5-47), wherein the emission layer EML comprises a first compound the can be represented by one of the following compounds:
PNG
media_image11.png
490
595
media_image11.png
Greyscale
page 38 or
PNG
media_image12.png
499
545
media_image12.png
Greyscale
on page 45 meeting the limitation formula 1-3 as instantly claimed in claim and at least one compound selected from Compound Group I e.g. compound 82:
PNG
media_image13.png
244
323
media_image13.png
Greyscale
as recited by instant claims.
It is noted that formula 1-3 is stated as representative of formula 1-1 as recited in claim 1, therefore, the compounds meets the limitation of formula 1-1. Zink et al. teach the emission layer emits delayed fluorescence ( see page 16,lines 6-10). Zink et al. also teach the emission layer emits light having a central wavelength in a range of from 400 nm to 800 nm on page 16, lines 14-17 encompassing the instant claimed range of about 430 to about 470 nm.
Further regards to claims 1 , 4 and 5, Zink et al. do not explicitly recite the emission layer comprises at least one of a second compound represented by Formula 2, a third compound represented by formula 3, and a fourth compound represented by formula 4 as instantly claimed by claim 1 or the emission layer comprises the first compound, the second compound, the third compound as recited by instant claim 4 or comprises the first compound, the second compound, the third compound and the fourth compound as recited by instant claim 5. However, Zink et al. recognize that emission layer (EML) layer on page 20 comprises one light emitting organic molecule represented by formula I above and mixed-host system and host compound that is a carbazole compound. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Cho et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of light emitting device ( OLED; see abstract, claims and examples) comprising an emission layer that may emit blue delayed fluorescence light [0777] to include at least one of a second compound represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image14.png
230
400
media_image14.png
Greyscale
( See Formula 1
PNG
media_image15.png
203
552
media_image15.png
Greyscale
wherein X11 is N(R19) is R19 is represented by –(L11)a11- A11 [0025-0026] meeting the limitation of formula 2); a third compound represented by formula 3:
PNG
media_image16.png
193
321
media_image16.png
Greyscale
( see formula 10
PNG
media_image17.png
299
504
media_image17.png
Greyscale
[0025-0026] wherein Z1 to Z3 is represented by N meeting the limitation of Formula 3 as instantly claimed) , and a fourth compound represented by formula 4:
PNG
media_image18.png
334
394
media_image18.png
Greyscale
( see PT1 to PT8 in Group III-2 on page 92:
PNG
media_image19.png
416
576
media_image19.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 4 as recited by the instant claims). Zink et al. and Cho et al. are analogous art in the field of OLED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the light-emitting device of Zink et al. to include one of a second compound represented by Formula 2, a third compound represented by formula 3, and a fourth compound represented by formula 4 as taught by Cho et al. in view of aiding in improving the luminescent efficiency.
Claims 16, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al. (US 2021/0277026 A1) as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 2023/0309401 A1) and/or Cho et al. (EP 3800681 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 18 and 19, Geum et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples and figures) teach an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode provide to face the first electrode ( claims 10 and 13); a hole transport region; an emission layer (claim 13) between the first and second electrodes; an electron transport region, wherein the emission layer comprises a fused polycyclic compound represented by
PNG
media_image20.png
252
316
media_image20.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image21.png
271
405
media_image21.png
Greyscale
( see page 102) meeting the limitation of Formula 1-1 as instantly claimed.
Further regards to claims 16, Geum et al. do not explicitly recite the emission layer comprises at least one of a second compound represented by Formula 2, a third compound represented by formula 3, and a fourth compound represented by formula 4 as instantly claimed by claim 16. However, Geum et al. recognize that emission layer (EML) layer can comprise a host system (see claims and [0211-0212]). Nonetheless, the examiner has added Cho et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of light emitting device (OLED; see abstract, claims and examples) comprising an emission layer that may emit blue delayed fluorescence light [0777] to include at least one of a second compound represented by Formula 2:
PNG
media_image14.png
230
400
media_image14.png
Greyscale
( See Formula 1
PNG
media_image15.png
203
552
media_image15.png
Greyscale
wherein X11 is N(R19) is R19 is represented by –(L11)a11- A11 [0025-0026] meeting the limitation of formula 2); a third compound represented by formula 3:
PNG
media_image16.png
193
321
media_image16.png
Greyscale
( see formula 10
PNG
media_image17.png
299
504
media_image17.png
Greyscale
[0025-0026] wherein Z1 to Z3 is represented by N meeting the limitation of Formula 3 as instantly claimed) , and a fourth compound represented by formula 4:
PNG
media_image18.png
334
394
media_image18.png
Greyscale
( see PT1 to PT8 in Group III-2 on page 92:
PNG
media_image19.png
416
576
media_image19.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitation of formula 4 as recited by the instant claims). Geum et al. and Cho et al. are analogous art in the field of OLED. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the light-emitting device of Geum et al. to include one of a second compound represented by Formula 2, a third compound represented by formula 3, and a fourth compound represented by formula 4 as taught by Cho et al. in view of aiding in improving the luminescent efficiency.
Regarding claim 21, Geum et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples and figures) teach an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode provide to face the first electrode ( claims 10 and 13); an organic material layer (an emission layer; claim 13) between the first and second electrodes, the emission layer comprises a fused polycyclic compound represented by
PNG
media_image20.png
252
316
media_image20.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image21.png
271
405
media_image21.png
Greyscale
( see page 102) meeting the limitation of Formula 1-1 as instantly claimed.
Although Geum et al. do not explicitly recite a display apparatus comprising a base layer, a circuit layer on the base layer and display device layer disposed on the circuit layer as instantly claimed, it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skilled that light emitting device are included in display apparatus having a base layer, a circuit layer and display device layer that includes a light emitting device as evidenced by Kim et al. ( see paragraphs [0093-0095]). These elements are commonly known in the OLED field of the art. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include a display apparatus comprising a base layer, a circuit layer on the base layer and display device layer as taught by Geum et al. disposed on the circuit layer as evidenced by Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 20 are 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.
No prior art teaches a compound selected from Compound Group 1 as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue the combination of Zink and Cho should not disclose or even suggest all the features of amended claim 1. Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite Formula 1-1. This amendment clarifies that the claimed first compound is limited to Formula 1-1 and thereby aligns the claimed with specific embodiment disclosed in the present application. The compounds disclosed in Zink and Cho differ from the present Formula 1-1 in that they do not disclose a structure in which am ortho-type terphenyl group is bonded to the nitrogen atom of the central core. Zink does not appear to disclose or even suggest the now recited Formula 1-1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Zink does not appear to disclose or even suggest the now recited Formula 1-1. comprises a first compound the can be represented by one of the following compounds:
PNG
media_image11.png
490
595
media_image11.png
Greyscale
on page 38 or
PNG
media_image12.png
499
545
media_image12.png
Greyscale
on page 45 meeting the limitation formula 1-3 as instantly claimed in claim and at least one compound selected from Compound Group I e.g. compound 82:
PNG
media_image13.png
244
323
media_image13.png
Greyscale
as recited by instant claims. It is noted that formula 1-3 is stated as representative of formula 1-1 as recited in claim 1, therefore, the compounds meets the limitation of formula 1-1. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights