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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed June 25, 2026, which amends claims 137, 160, and 161. Claims 137, 139-141, 143-151, and 154-161 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed June 25, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 137, 139-141, 143-151, and 154-161 as set forth in the Office action mailed March 20, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 137, 139-141, 143-151, and 154-161 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 137, 139-141, 143-151, and 154-161 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 137 has been amended to include the following, “wherein if the first compound is homoleptic, then the second compound has the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
127
112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; wherein each X is independently C or N; wherein RA, RB, and Rc each independently represents mono to the maximum allowable number of substitutions, or no substitution; wherein each RA, RB, and Rc is independently a hydrogen or a substituent selected from the group consisting of deuterium, halogen, alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, heterocycloalkyl, boryl, arylalkyl, alkoxy, aryloxy, amino, silyl, germyl, boryl, selenyl, alkenyl, cycloalkenyl, heteroalkenyl, alkynyl, aryl, heteroaryl, acyl, carboxylic acid, ether, ester, nitrile, isonitrile, sulfanyl, sulfinyl, sulfonyl, phosphino, and combinations thereof; and at least one of the following conditions i) or ii) is true:i) at least one X is C; or ii) at least one RA, RB, or Rc that bonds to the carbon ring atom that is para to the trigonal planar nitrogen atom that forms three single bonds to its adjacent atoms is independently a hydrogen or a substituent selected from the group consisting of deuterium, halogen, alkyl, cycloalkyl, heteroalkyl, heterocycloalkyl, boryl, arylalkyl, alkoxy, aryloxy, silyl, germyl, boryl, selenyl, alkenyl, cycloalkenyl, heteroalkenyl, alkynyl, acyl, carboxylic acid, ether, ester, nitrile, isonitrile, sulfanyl, sulfinyl, sulfonyl, phosphino, and combinations thereof”. This newly added proviso is not simply just carving out one single compound or a readily envisaged negative limitation, but is instead a complex exclusion based on specific combination of variables. The fairness of a new matter rejection hinges on whether that specific “carve-out” was every contemplated or if it creates a “newly claimed sub-genus”. While MEPE 2163.05(i) allows negative limitations to overcome the prior art, an Applicant cannot simply add a negative limitations that is created through the picking and choosing form multiple variable selections to create a sub-genus that was not originally identified. The originally filed disclosed does not provide any direction that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to make the specific selections of variable to arrive at the compound to be excluded. The Applicant is essentially stitching together an exclusion from disparate parts of the specification to cover the compounds disclosed in the prior art. The specific list of conditions would lead to a proviso not disclosed in any reasonable manner to suggest that the Application had possession of the exclusion.
Claims 139-141, 143-151, and 154-161 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 137.
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 Kuznetsov et al. (Chem. Commun. 2017, 53, 4830-4833) (hereafter “Kuznetsov”) in view of Adachi et al. (US 2015/0048338) (hereafter “Adachi”), and 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, Kuznetsov teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, and a cathode (page 4833 Fig. 4). Kuznetsov teaches that the light emitting layer comprises
PNG
media_image2.png
181
131
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the material in the light emitting layer (page 4830 Scheme 1 and page 4833 Fig. 4). The compounds of Kuznetsov which is the applicant’s second compound and is an acceptor and a TADF material . Kuznetsov teaches electroluminescent device structure was not optimized and better performance could be obtained by optimizing the structure (page 4833 left column second paragraph). Kuznetsov teaches that the electroluminescent device can be sued in a consumer product (abstract).
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.
Kuznetsov does not teach were the device comprises an electron transporting layer or host materials in the light emitting layer or where the light emitting layer comprises a sensitizer material.
Adachi teaches a similar electron luminescent device comprising light emitting material that is similar to structure to the compounds of Kuznetsov. 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_image3.png
102
195
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image4.png
149
119
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0072]). Adachi teaches that the dopant can be
PNG
media_image5.png
189
210
media_image5.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 devices formed have good electroluminescent properties (paragraph [0090]).
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_image6.png
167
107
media_image6.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 Kuznetsov to have the device structure, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transpiring layer, and a host material in the light emitting layer, as taught by Adachi. Kuznetsov teaches that the device can be optimized and Adachi teaches a device for similar light emitting materials and teaches that the resulting device display electroluminescent properties. The motivation would have been to improve the electroluminescent properties of the device.
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 Kuznetsov in view 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights