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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on January 24, 2022 and December 26, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-00185022 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on July 22, 2026.
Claims 1, 13, 14, 16 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 15 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 35 CFR 1.142(b) as drawn to a non-elected species. Election was made without traverse in a phone call to Applicant on April 9, 2026.
Claims 1 – 14 and 16 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed July 22, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 7, 10, 13, 14 and 16 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang as set forth in the office action filed April 23, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C.103 as obvious over Kang as set forth in the office action filed April 23, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Kim as set forth in the office action filed April 23, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Jeong as set forth in the office action filed April 23, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 24, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Jeong and further in view of Jang as set forth in the office action filed April 23, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes that compounds HS-1 and HS-16 of Huang are identical to comparative examples of C1 and C4 of the present application, which show inferior lifetime and efficiency as compared to the presently claimed compounds in Table 2 of the instant specification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least 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).With respect to requirement (ii), Examiner notes that the claims do not appear to been commensurate in scope with the claimed limitations because the results demonstrate the use of the compound in a particular layer, namely the emission layer, with a multi-host system and a sensitizer, all of which are narrower than the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Examiner notes that independent claim 13 is directed to a compound, and not the use of the compound in a device, as is shown in the Table.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1 – 14 and 16 – 20 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 § 102
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, 2, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye (CN106467553A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, and 17, Ye teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
320
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ye makes Example devices as described in [0150 – 0155] with a structure of substate/anode/hole injection layer/hole transport layer/light-emitting layer/electron transport layer/electron injection layer/cathode. In Example 17, compound 31
PNG
media_image2.png
152
186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is used in the emission layer. Compound 31 reads on the claims Formula wherein X1 is C(R4)(R5); X2 is O; X3 is C(R8)(R9); Y1 is B; Ar1 to Ar3 are each independently a C6 carbocyclic group; d1 is 0 so that E1 does not exist; d2 and d3 are 1; E2 and E3 are both represented by –(L)a(R)b where L is a single bond, and R is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group. The compound meets Condition 4 of claims 1 and 13 and condition 4A in claim 16. The compound is represented by Formula 1-1 in claim 16 wherein all the Z atoms are carbon. The compound is represented by Formula 1-2 in claim 17 wherein E12 is hydrogen.)
As per claim 19, Ye is silent with respect to the lowest excitation triplet energy level. However, since Ye teaches the same structure as disclosed by Applicant, the property of lowest excitation triplet energy level 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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN106467553A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 19 above.
As per claim 20, another compound taught by Ye is compound 32
PNG
media_image3.png
148
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on Page 9. This compound differs from claimed compound 13
PNG
media_image4.png
144
118
media_image4.png
Greyscale
only in the substituents off of the condensed ring system. However, Ye teaches compounds such as compound 4
PNG
media_image5.png
148
220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on Page 7, which contains substituents of phenyl rings with two methyl groups on each. Therefore, it would have been obvious to similarly modify modified compound 13 above to replace the naphthyl substituents and add a third substitution with phenyl groups each substituted with two methyl groups and to select any combination of the locations of the methyl groups, such as the claimed arrangement and arrive at claimed compound 13.
Ye includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ye 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 compounds with improved efficiency and lifetime ([0147]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN106467553A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 above and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 11, Ye does not teach:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the thin-film transistor includes a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Huang in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN106467553A, using the provided machine translation) and Jeong (US20170162796A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 11,13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 above and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 12, the prior art combination does not teach:
The electronic apparatus further comprising a color filter or a color conversion layer
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of the prior art combination because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 10, 13 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN109810106A, using the previously provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 3, and 13 – 17, Huang teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer ([0102]: “An electroluminescent device having at least one anode, at least one cathode, and at least one light-emitting layer, wherein the at least one light-emitting layer contains the light-emitting composition.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
320
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the condensed cyclic compound emits light (Huang teaches that the light emitting layer contains a compound of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image6.png
170
224
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound taught by Huang is compound HS-3
PNG
media_image7.png
194
174
media_image7.png
Greyscale
on Page 9, which does not contain the claimed X2 group of condition 4. However, in the definitions for La and Lb, Huang teaches that the atoms can be selected from among O, N(R), C(R)(R), and Si(R)(R) ([0121]). 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 C(R)(R) groups with an O atom and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 and X3 are C(R4)(R5); X2 is O; Y1 is N; Ar1 to Ar3 are each independently a C6 carbocyclic group; d1 to d3 are each 1; L1 to L3 are each single bonds; a1 to a3 are each 1; R1 to R3 are all a substituted C6 carbocyclic group, wherein the substituents are two C1 alkyl groups. The compound satisfies Condition 4 in claims 1 and 13. This compound reads on Formula 1-1 in claim 16 wherein Z11 – Z13, Z21 – Z23; and Z31 – Z33 are all C(E) and the compound meets Condition 4A. The compound reads on Formula 1-2 in claim 17 wherein E12, E22, and E32 are all a substituted C6 carbocyclic group, wherein the substituents are two C1 alkyl groups.)
Huang includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Huang 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 higher energy transfer efficiency (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Huang teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Huang as Huang demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 10, Huang teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue or blue-green light ([0028]: “The preferred host and guest material composition should be easy to prepare and have good energy transfer efficiency so that when applied to blue light-emitting device… it can achieve a high external quantum efficiency with a small doping ratio.”)
As per claim 18, Huang teaches compounds with phenyl substituents instead of methyl substituents off of the carbon atoms such as compound HS-6
PNG
media_image8.png
220
184
media_image8.png
Greyscale
on Page 9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to similarly modify modified compound HS-3 above to replace the methyl groups in the position corresponding to claimed X1 with phenyl groups and arrive at a compound that reads on Formula 2 wherein X1a is C; X1b is not a bond; Ar11 and Ar21 are an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group.
Huang includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Huang 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 higher energy transfer efficiency (Abstract), 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 19, Huang appears silent with respect to the property of a lowest excitation triplet energy level. However, since Huang teaches compounds with the same structure disclosed by Applicant, the property of a lowest excitation triplet energy level is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence other. 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.
Claims 4 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN109810106A, using the previously provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 10, 13 – 19 above and further in view of Kim (US20210104681A1).
As per claims 4 – 9, Huang teaches that the polycyclic condensed compound is provided in an emission layer with a second, transition metal compound as required by claim 8 ([0032 – 0041]). Huang teaches compound Pt-9 as an example of a suitable organometallic compound
PNG
media_image9.png
178
188
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on claimed Formula c-3 in claim 9 wherein A31 and A34 are substituted heterocyclic groups of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms, A32 and A33 are unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; T31 and T33 are both a direct linkage; T32 is -O-. Huang teaches that the condensed heterocyclic compound and the transition metal compound relationship exhibits high energy transfer efficiency ([0052]).
Huang does not teach:
An amount of the condensed cyclic compound is in a range of about 0 parts by weight to about 50 parts by weight based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the emission layer
The light emitting device comprising a first compound that is a hole transporting compound represented by Formula a
PNG
media_image10.png
198
280
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The light emitting device comprising a second compound that is an electron-transporting compound represented by Formula b
PNG
media_image11.png
170
402
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches emission layers of organometallic compounds that contain a condensed polycyclic compound of Formula 4
PNG
media_image12.png
178
284
media_image12.png
Greyscale
and an organometallic compound represented by Formula 3C
PNG
media_image13.png
130
270
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0065 – 0068]). This is similar to the composition of the emission layer of Huang. Kim further teaches that the use of the compounds improves the energy transfer between compounds ([0212]). This is the same mechanism as the emission layer of Huang. Kim teaches that the emission layer additionally contains a hole transport host, represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image14.png
108
264
media_image14.png
Greyscale
and an electron host represented by Formula 10
PNG
media_image15.png
132
286
media_image15.png
Greyscale
([0065 – 0068]). A specific example of the hole transport host taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image16.png
148
274
media_image16.png
Greyscale
([0210]), which reads on Formula a wherein X11 is N(R19); R11 to R18 are hydrogen; R19 is *-(L11)a11-(A11)b11 wherein L11 is an unsubstituted π-electron rich C6 cyclic group; a11 is 1; A11 is an unsubstituted π-electron rich C12 cyclic group; b11 is 1. A specific example of the electron transport host taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image17.png
212
282
media_image17.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula b wherein X21 to X23 are N; L21 to L23 are each a single bond; a21 to a23 are 1; A21 and A22 are both an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; A23 is a substituted C12 heterocyclic group substituted with one C6 carbocyclic group. Kim teaches that when all the four compounds are used in the emission layer, the resulting device exhibits improved efficiency ([0212 – 0213]). Kim further teaches that the polycyclic compound is present in the emission layer in an amount of 0.25 wt% to about 5 wt% based on the total weight of the emission layer ([0234]).
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 a dual-host system to the emission layer of Huang, wherein one host is a hole transporting compound represented by Formula a and the other host is an electron transporting compound represented by Formula b, motivated by the desire to predictably provide a device with improved efficiency as taught by Kim ([0212 – 0213]). It further would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the condensed polycyclic compound of Huang in the claimed amount because Kim teaches that the claimed amount is a predictably suitable amount of a polycyclic compound in a four-component emission layer composition ([0234]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN109810106A, using the previously provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 10, 13 – 19 above and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 11, Huang does not teach:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the thin-film transistor includes a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Huang in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN109810106A, using the previously provided machine translation) and Jeong (US20170162796A1) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 10, 13 – 19 above and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 12, the prior art combination does not teach:
The electronic apparatus further comprising a color filter or a color conversion layer
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of the prior art combination because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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
Prosecution Insights