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 June 24, 2026.
The certified English translation of the Korean Patent Application have been received. The priority of the Application has been perfected to April 1, 2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in claims 1 and 15, R4 in Formula 1 are an alkyl group, an aryl group or a heteroaryl group. Applicant refers to Table 3 of the instant specification as evidence of the improved lifetime and efficiency in OLED devices using these compounds as compared to devices using compounds outside of the claimed Formula. 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 (i), Examiner notes that the closest prior art is considered to be Rota, shown below. However, no comparison has been made between the unmodified compound of Rota and the inventive compounds. With respect to requirement (ii), Examiner notes that the data shown in the Table is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention for at least the reasons that the devices in the Table 3 require a two-host system and a sensitizer, none of which are required in the device of claim 1. Examiner further notes that the compounds of the claimed Formula in the Examples contain a terphenyl group off of a nitrogen atom on the condensed polycyclic core and substituents off of the top phenyl rings. These groups and substituents are not required by claimed Formula 1. Finally, Examiner notes that with respect to the comparative Examples, all the comparative compounds are structurally different from the inventive compounds in more than one position. Therefore, it is not possible to determine which of the multiple different features between the comparative compounds and the inventive compounds in the Table are responsible for the improved performance.
Applicant argues that Rota only teaches compounds where the position corresponding to R4 in claimed Formula 1 is a hydrogen atom and that it provides no motivation, teaching, or suggestion to introduce a non-hydrogen substituent at the claimed position. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971).
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 – 10 and 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota (KR20220024878A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 6, 8, 10, and 15 – 18, Rota teaches:
A light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode on the first electrode and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0902 – 0912]): “When the optoelectronic device is an OLED, it may, for example, having the following layer structure: 1. Substrate 2. Anode layer A 3. Hole injection layer, HIL 4. Hole transport layer, HTL 5. Electron blocking layer, EBL 6. Emitting layer, EML 7. Hole blocking layer HBL 8. Electron transport layer, ETL 9. Electron injection layer, EIL 10. Cathode layer.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
244
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Rota teaches compounds of formula (I)
PNG
media_image2.png
260
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0009]) wherein RV is selected from Formula I-0
PNG
media_image3.png
292
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0150]), wherein one Rb is the binding site of RV. A particular compound taught by Rota is
PNG
media_image4.png
152
162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which does not contain the claimed R4 substituent. However, in the definition of Formula I-0, Rota teaches that the other Rb can be selected from an alkyl group or an aryl group ([0220]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an alkyl or aryl substituent on the compound of Rota in the position corresponding to claimed R4 and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R1 to R3 are hydrogen; R4 is an alkyl or aryl group substituent; X1 and X2 are NRX; Y is O; RX is an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms. The compound reads on Formula 2 in claims 3 and 16, Formula 3-1 in claims 4 and 17, Formula 3-1-1 in claims 5 and 18. & [0791]: “A preferred embodiment relates to the use of an organic molecule according to the invention as a luminescent emitter in an optoelectronic device.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises at least one selected from among a second compound represented by HT-1, a third compound represented by Formula ET-1, and a fourth compound represented by M-b (In D1, Rota teaches a device where in addition to the boron-nitride compound, the emission layer also contains mCBP, which reads on the claimed HT-1 compound wherein R9 is a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms and MAT2,
PNG
media_image5.png
208
202
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed ET-1 compound wherein Y1 – Y3 are N; L1 to L3 are all direct linkages and Ar1 to Ar3 are ach a substituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms.)
Rota includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Rota 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 efficiency or higher color purity ([0005]), 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 claims 7, 9, 14, 19 and 20, Rota teaches Formula Ie-1
PNG
media_image6.png
332
372
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0555]), with a tert-phenyl substituent on the nitrogen atoms, and Formula Ig
PNG
media_image7.png
280
306
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0597]) with phenyl groups in the corresponding RII and RIII positions. Since the carbazole group is also represented by Formula I-0, it would have been obvious to substitute the carbazole substituent with a group such as tert-butyl ([0220]). When Formula Ie-1 is modified to contain the phenyl substituents as in Formula Ig, the compound reads on Formula 4-2 in claims 7 and 19, wherein R4 is a tert-butyl group as required by claim 9. The only difference between this modified compound and compound 86 in claims 14 and 20
PNG
media_image8.png
236
192
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is the orientation of the tert-phenyl. However, in formula (1), the substituents off of the phenyl group can be in any location, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the orientation of the tert-phenyl groups and arrive at the claimed compound.
Rota includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Rota 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 efficiency or higher color purity ([0005]), 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 12, Rota teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is to emit thermally activated delayed fluorescence ([0873]: “In one embodiment of the present invention, host compound D and/or host compound H are thermally-activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) materials.”)
As per claim 13, Rota teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is to emit light having an emission center wavelength of about 430 nm to about 490 nm ([0955]: “Accordingly, a further aspect of the present invention relates to an OLED… exhibiting a maximum emission of 485 nm to 560 nm.”)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rota (KR20220024878A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 20 above, and further in view of Kim (US20210104681A1).
As per claim 11, Rota teaches that the emission layer contains the boron-nitride compound and a dual host compound. Rota does not specifically teach:
A fourth compound represented by M-b
PNG
media_image9.png
292
472
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches an emission layer that comprises a boron-containing compound (Abstract), a hole transporting host material and an electron transport host material ([0230]). This is similar to the emission layer composition of Rota. Kim further teaches that the emission layer includes a compound including a metal element having an atomic number of 40 or more (Abstract). Kim teaches compound PT1
PNG
media_image10.png
148
318
media_image10.png
Greyscale
as a specific example of this compound ([0210]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula M-b wherein Q1 to Q4 are each independently C; C1 and C4 are substituted heterocyclic groups of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms, C2 and C3 are unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; e4 is 0 so that rings C1 and C4 are not linked; e1 to e3 are all 1; L21 and L23 are both a direct linkage; L22 is -O-. Kim teaches that by including this metallic compound, intersystem crossing occurs, resulting in the transfer of triplet exciton generated from the host materials to the boron compound, and creating improved efficiency ([0212 – 0213]).
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 Pt-based compound in the emission layer of Rota, motivated by the desire to predictably provide a device with improved efficiency as taught by Kim ([0212 – 0213]).
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