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 August 20, 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 16 and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed August 20, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed May 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 20, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 – 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang as set forth in the office action filed May 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 20, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim as set forth in the office action filed May 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 20, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 6, 8, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as set forth in the office action filed May 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 20, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and further in view of Jang as set forth in the office action filed May 29, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed August 20, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 6, 8, and 17 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as set forth in the office action filed May 29, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 have language that recite “the C4 – C13 polycyclic group is a condensed ring in which two, three or four C2 – C6 monocyclic groups are condensed with each other.” This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Claim also recites “the C2 – C6 monocyclic group,” which also lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2 – 9, and 12 – 20 are rejected based on their dependency from claims 1 and 10.
For examination purposes, the claimed limitations are interpreted as not being required.
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 10, 13 – 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US20200079760A1).
As per claims 10, 13 – 17, and 19, Yang teaches:
A heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
364
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Yang teaches compounds of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image2.png
120
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0008]). In the Table of [0147], Yang teaches compound 1021, wherein A is represented by a group of A1
PNG
media_image3.png
52
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, D1 and D2 are represented by a group of D1
PNG
media_image4.png
128
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and D3 is represented by a group of D2
PNG
media_image5.png
148
294
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Z1 is a cyano group; L1 and L2 are a carbazole group; R2 is a C1 alkyl group and b2 is an integer of 2; the remaining R groups are hydrogen. As L1 group and the L2 group differ in that one is unsubstituted and the other is substituted, they are interpreted as being different from each other as required by the claim. As none of the R groups are linked to form a ring, Yang anticipates claim 15. As L1 is a carbazole group, the provisos of claim 16 do not apply and Yang anticipates claim 16. The compound meets Condition A and B in claim 19.)
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 – 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US20200079760A1) as applied to claims 10, 13 – 17, and 19 above.
As per claims 1 – 3, 6, and 8, Yang teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, an electron control layer, or a combination thereof ([0034]: “FIG. 1 is a schematic wherein 1 denotes a substrate, 2 denotes an anode, 3 denotes a hole injection layer, 4 denotes a hole transporting layer, 5 denotes a light-emitting layer, 6 denotes an electron transporting layer, and 7 denotes a cathode.” An OLED is an electronic device as required by claim 6 and an electronic apparatus as required by claim 8.)
Wherein the interlayer comprises the heterocyclic compound ([0170]: “In some embodiments, the compound represented by Formula (I) of the invention may be effectively used as a light-emitting material in a light-emitting layer of an organic light-emitting device.”)
Yang 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 Yang as Yang demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 4, Yang teaches:
Wherein the hole transport region comprises the emission auxiliary layer and wherein the emission auxiliary layer comprises the heterocyclic compound (While Yang teaches the use of the compound in a light-emitting layer, because the particular composition of the emission auxiliary layer is not required, it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed emission auxiliary layer can be interpreted as a sublayer of the emission layer of Yang.)
As per claim 5, Yang teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a delayed fluorescence material ([0170]: “In some embodiments, the compound of Formula (I) can be used as a host material and used with one or more light-emitting materials, and the light-emitting material can be… a TADF material.”)
As per claim 9, Yang teaches:
Wherein the electronic apparatus is a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a medical monitor, a television…. ([0198]: “In some embodiments, the compounds of the disclosure are incorporated into a device, For example, the device includes, but is not limited to an OLED bulb, an OLED lamp, a television screen, a computer monitor, a mobile phone, and a tablet.”)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US20200079760A1) as applied to claims 1 – 6, 8 – 10, 13 – 17, and 19 above and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 7, Yang does not teach:
The electronic device further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or a combination thereof
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 Yang because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 8, 10, and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20210045325A, using the previously provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 3, 6, 8, 10, 13 – 20, Kim teaches:
A heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
364
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image6.png
176
514
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0010]). A particular compound taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image7.png
78
82
media_image7.png
Greyscale
on Page 21. This compound contains two symmetrical phenyl groups as substituents off the diazine ring, a condition which is specifically excluded by the claims. However, Kim defines X1 as being selected from a group of aryl or heteroaryl groups ([0083]) and recites carbazole groups as a specific example of a heteroaryl group ([0073]). 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 phenyl groups with a carbazole group and arrive at the claimed compounds. When modified in this way to include a second carbazole group in the position of one of the phenyl rings, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Z1 is a cyano group; L1 is a benzene group and L2 is a carbazole group; all the R groups are hydrogen. As none of the R groups are linked to form a ring, Kim meets the limitations of claim 15. Since both R1 is not a silyl group, the provisos of claim 16 do not apply and Kim meets the claim limitations of claim 16. One of the groups is a carbazole group, meeting condition 2 in claim 18, and condition A in claim 19. The compound is the same as compound 1 in claim 20
PNG
media_image8.png
142
98
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.)
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof, and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, an electron control layer, or a combination thereof (Kim discloses the following device structure in [0161]: Anode/Hole injection layer/ Hole transport layer/ Emitting layer/ Hole blocking layer/ Electron transport layer/ Electron injection layer/Cathode. An OLED is an electronic device as required by claim 6 and an electronic apparatus as required by claim 8.)
Wherein the interlayer comprises the heterocyclic compound (In [0336], Kim teaches that the compound according to Chemical Formula 1 can be used as a host for the light-emitting layer.)
Kim includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Kim 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 organic light emitting devices with high efficiency and long lifespan ([0052]) absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Kim teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and 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 Kim as Kim demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 4, Kim teaches:
Wherein the hole transport region comprises the emission auxiliary layer and wherein the emission auxiliary layer comprises the heterocyclic compound (While Kim teaches the use of the compound in a light-emitting layer, because the particular composition of the emission auxiliary layer is not required, it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed emission auxiliary layer can be interpreted as a sublayer of the emission layer of Kim.)
As per claim 5, Kim teaches:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a delayed fluorescence material ([0143]: “In the organic light-emitting device of the present specification, the organic layer comprises a light-emitting layer, and the light-emitting layer may comprise a thermally activated delayed light-emitting composition.”)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20210045325A, using the previously provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 6, 8, 10, and 13 – 20 above and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 7, Kim does not teach:
The electronic device further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or a combination thereof
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 Kim 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