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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 27, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed February 27, 2026, which amends claims 137, 143, and 151, cancels claims 138, 142, 152, and 153, and adds claims 158-161. Claims 137, 139-141, 143-151, and 154-161 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 137-157 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the Office action mailed December 1, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 143 and 151-153 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as set forth in the Office action mailed December 1, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 137, 142, 151, and 154 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 2018/0175294) as set forth in the Office action mailed December 1, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed February 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 138 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2015/0048338) (hereafter “Adachi”) in view of Forrest et al. (US 6,310,360) as set forth in the Office action mailed December 1, 2025. The applicant cancels claim 138; therefore, the claim is no longer pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that rejection is silent on the limitation “a second compound whose lowest-energy excited state is not a lowest excited triplet state T1”, the Office points out that paragraph [0099] of the instant application states that “The N or B atoms forming three single bonds to its adjacent atoms in aromatic system help the second compound to have its lowest energy excited state that is not T1 energy”. The compound of Adachi has this structure and would meet the limitation according to the teaching of the applicant. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 137, 139-141, 143-151, and 154-161 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2015/0048338) (hereafter “Adachi”) in view of Forrest et al. (US 6,310,360) (hereafter “Forrest”) as referenced by Lennartz et al. (US 2016/0315274) (hereafter “Lennartz”).
Regarding claims 137, 139-141, 143-151, and 154-161, Adachi teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transpiring layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0086] and [0087]). Adachi teaches that the light emitting layer comprises a host material and a dopant (paragraph [0087]). Adachi teaches that the host can be
PNG
media_image1.png
102
195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
149
119
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0072]). Adachi teaches that the dopant can be
PNG
media_image3.png
189
210
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which is the applicant’s second compound and is an acceptor and a TADF material (paragraphs [0043] and [0086]). Adachi teaches that the second electroluminescent device can be used in a consumer product (paragraph [0082]).
Paragraph [0099] of the instant application states that “The N or B atoms forming three single bonds to its adjacent atoms in aromatic system help the second compound to have its lowest energy excited state that is not T1 energy”. The compound of Adachi has this structure and would meet the limitation according to the teaching of the applicant.
Adachi does not teach where the light emitting layer comprises a sensitizer material.
Forrest teaches the use of sensitizers in the light emitting layer of electroluminescent devices (column 9 lines 2-18). Forrest teaches that the sensitizer can be phosphorescent materials, such as Ir(ppy)3 (
PNG
media_image4.png
167
107
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) (column 9 lines 2-18 and column 13 lines 16-50). Forrest teaches that adding the sensitizer material to the light emitting layer comprising fluorescent dopants leads to an improvement efficiency of the dopant and light emitting device (column lines 2-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Adachi to include the Ir(ppy)3 as the sensitizer material as taught by Forrest. The motivation would have been to improve the efficiency of the device. The claimed energy properties would naturally flow from the combination given the compounds meet the applicant’s claimed formulas and the applicant does not give specific examples of the compounds that meet the energy limitations.
Lennartz shows that Ir(ppy)3 inherently has a S1-T1 energy gap is about 200 meV (paragraph [0242]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759