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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 02/25/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed January 30, 2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claim 16 has been amended.
Claims 16-20 and 22-31 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
In the Non-Final office action dated 11/03/2025, Examiner failed to clearly make a prima facie case of obviousness by clearly explaining why the prior art and the instant claims are equivalent (MPEP 2183).
Accordingly, a Non-Final office action is issued herein to replace the Non-Final office action dated 11/03/2025.
The following is in response to the remarks dated 01/30/2026.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that the amendments overcome the rejection of record, Examiner disagrees.
The rejection of record relies upon a compound wherein a position analogous to instant Z3 is a substituted methylene group.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to more clearly explain how the prior art reads on the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
With respect to claim 31, the claim contains the limitation that, “the binding site of RA according to formula SB-III-3a is one of the C3-C15-carbon atoms of the CA-C15 heteroaryl.”
This limitation is unclear for at least two reasons.
The first reason is that the claim is written in such as way that it is unclear how many carbon atoms are actually required because in one limitation, RA is bonded to up-to and including the fifteenth carbon atom, when fifteen carbon atoms are not necessarily required by the second range.
The second reason is that there is no CA-C15 heteroaryl. It is unclear what CA is referring to; however, it appears to be a simple typographical error.
In continuing examination, this limitation is being interpreted as, “the binding site of RA according to formula SB-III-3a is one of the [[C3-C15-]]carbon atoms of the C3[[A]]-C15 heteroaryl.”
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 31 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.
With respect to claim 31, the claim contains reference to a CA-C15-heteroaryl. This limitation is not present in the instant claim nor any preceding claim.
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
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.
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(s) 16-20, 22-26 and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/040298 A1, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 16, Hatakeyama discloses an organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0010) comprising a light emitting layer comprising a host material, a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) material, and a boron-containing emitter (paragraph 0011).
Hatakeyama gives an example of the host material (paragraph 0041), H1-2202 (mCBP), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound is analogous to the instant host material, HB.
Hatakeyama also gives an example of the TADF material (paragraphs 0048 and 0063), such as the compound below.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Hatakeyama formula AD1 (paragraph 0012, bullet point 15), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
284
278
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Formula AD1, Hatakeyama also teaches that M can also be CAr, wherein Ar is an alkyl having 1 carbon atom (methylene), which is substituted by two C1 alkyl groups, forming an isopropyl linker (paragraph 0012, bullet point 15).
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula EB-I-3a when each Y1 is a nitrogen atom, m is 1, Z3 is CR9R10, R9 and R10 are each a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, n is 1, X2 is CN, each R13 is a hydrogen atom, and each Rb, Rc, and Rd is a hydrogen atom.
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 result of a TADF compound with good color spectrum with narrow half-width, high external quantum efficiency, improved roll-off, and a long lifetime (paragraph 0021) commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
This compound is analogous to the instant TADF material, EB.
Hatakeyama also gives an example of the boron-comprising emitter, BN2-0620S/0920S (paragraph 0102), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
404
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Hatakeyama formula (1) (paragraph 0080), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
438
482
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama also teaches the R2 is heteroaryl (a first substituent) which is further substituted by aryl (a second substituent) (paragraph 0080), examples of heteroaryl include triazinyl (paragraph 0084, line 2), and examples of aryl include phenyl (paragraph 0082, line 1).
Examiner would like to note that and aryl-substituted heteroaryl is given as a more preferred substituent (paragraph 0192, lines 7-8).
Hatakeyama includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Hatakeyama being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 result of improved performance in external quantum yield, a narrower half-width, and longer device lifetime (paragraph 0195), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
This compound is analogous to the instant TWHM emitting, SB.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host material, TADF material, and boron-emitting of Hatakeyama in an organic electroluminescent device in order to obtain an organic electroluminescent device wherein the energy transferred from the assisting dopant to the emitting dopant can be efficiently utilized for light emission, thereby achieving high light-emitting efficiency (paragraph 0018), as taught by Hatakeyama.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the energy level relationship requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 13 (mCBP, HB), 54 (TADF, EB), and 99 (boron-emitter, SB) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hatakeyama reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the claimed energy level relationships as well as the emission maximum wavelength of the boron compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 17, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and Hatakeyama teaches the TADF material EB, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 54 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hatakeyama reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the energy different between the lowermost excited singlet state and the lowermost excited triplet state being less than 0.4 eV. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the TADF compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 18, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16 and Hatakeyama teaches the FWHM emitter SB, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 99 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hatakeyama reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the FWHM of the compound being less than or equal to 0.25 eV. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the boron-containing emitter is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 19, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and Hatakeyama teaches the TADF material EB, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 54 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hatakeyama reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the TADF material having an emission maximum in the wavelength of 500 nm to 560 nm. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the TADF compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 20, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and Hatakeyama teaches the TADF material EB, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 54 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hatakeyama reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the TADF material having a HOMO energy greater than or equal to -6.0 eV and less than or equal to -5.8 eV. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the TADF compound is used as a material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 22, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and the small FWHM emitter has the structure of formula SB-I when B is boron, and Ar1-Ar3 are each an aromatic ring which are joined to form additional rings, as pictured above.
With respect to claims 23 and 24, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and the small FWHM emitter SB consists of a structure of Formula SB-III-3a when RA is a C3 heteroaryl (triazine) wherein two hydrogens are substituted with a C6 aryl (phenyl), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 25, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and the host material, mCBP, is a p-host material.
Examiner is interpreting this compound to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 13 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Hatakeyama reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to mCBP having a LUMO energy of greater than or equal to -2.6 eV. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when mCBP is used as a host material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 26, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and Hatakeyama teaches mCBP which is a p-host material, as discussed above.
The compound mCBP consists of a first chemical moiety comprising Formula HP-III, and two second chemical moieties according to Formula HP-XI when Z1 is a direct bond.
With respect to claims 28 and 29, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and Hatakeyama teaches the p-host compound is included in a concentration of 40-99.999 % by mass (paragraph 0034) the TADF material is included in the amount of 1 to 60 % (paragraph 0035), and the boron emitter is included in a concentration of 0.001 to 30 % by mass (paragraph 0036).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the claimed composition ratios encompass the ratio that would result from the composition of Hatakeyama. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 30, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, and Hatakeyama describes the process of measuring the lifetime (LT50) of an OLED by running a current through the OLED device (paragraphs 0375 and 0390). Hatakeyama teaches some of the resulting OLED devices emit in the green spectral range (paragraph 0392), more specifically, in the range of 500 to 560 nm (See Figure 3 which correspond to the instant compounds and composition, paragraph 0420).
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 13 (mCBP, HB), 54 (TADF, EB), and 99 (boron-emitter SB) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Hatakeyama reads on the claims.
Hatakeyama is silent to the composition resulting in green light at a wavelength of from 500 nm to 560 nm. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Hatakeyama, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Hatakeyama was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
It would have been obvious to develop a method wherein driving an electric current through the OLED of Hatakeyama would produce light emission, and that, comprising the composition of Hatakeyama, would expect doing so to produce green emission in the range of 500 to 560 nm, as taught by Hatakeyama.
With respect to claim 31, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 24, and the binding site of RA according to formula SB-III-3a is a carbon atom of the C3 heteroaryl, as discussed above.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/040298 A1, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Danz et al. (US 2019/0177303 A1).
With respect to claim 27, Hatakeyama teaches the device of claim 16, as discussed above.
However, Hatakeyama does not teach nor fairly suggest use of the electroluminescent device in an organic light emitting diode.
In analogous art, Danz teaches a TADF compound for use in optoelectronic device (abstract)
Danz teaches that examples of an organic electroluminescent device include an organic light emitting diode (paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Hatakeyama in an organic light emitting diode, as taught by Danz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights