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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 09/14/2026, no claims were amended.
The response is hereby entered.
Claims 1-14 were originally filed.
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks have caused withdrawal of the rejection of:
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goushi et al. (US 2016/0248036 A1) as evidenced by Nakanotani et al. (US 2019/0036033 A1),
Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Goushi et al. (US 2016/0248036 A1) as evidenced by Nakanotani et al. (US 2019/0036033 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu, J.Y., Feng, X., Seto, N., Do, J.H., Zeng, X., Tao, Z., Yamato, T., 2013, Synthesis, structural and spectral properties of diarylamino-functionalized pyrene derivatives via Buchwald-Hartwig amination reaction, Journal of Molecular Structure 1035, 19-26), and
Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goushi et al. (US 2016/0248036 A1) as evidenced by Nakanotani et al. (US 2019/0036033 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (WO 2018/237385 A1).
A new final office action is furnished herein to replace the office action dated 07/13/2026 and is related to the claim set dated 05/08/2026.
Applicant’s remaining arguments 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 § 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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (WO 2019/128105 A1, using US 2020/0083461 A1 as an official translation and for references), as evidenced by Guo et al. (Guo, J.; Zheng, C.J.; Ke, K.; Zhang, M.; Yang, H.Y.; Zhao, J.W.; He, Z.Y.; Lin, H.; Tao, S.L.; Zhang, X.H.; 2021, Novel triazine derivatives with deep LUMO energy levels as the electron-accepting components of exciplexes, Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 9, 939).
With respect to claim 1, Duan discloses a light emitting layer including an exciplex composed of a donor molecule and an acceptor molecule and a wide band-gap material for increasing intermolecular spacing between the donor molecule and the acceptor molecule (abstract).
Duan gives examples of a suitable wide band-gap material, donor molecule, and acceptor molecule through compounds such as W-7 (page 2), D-2 (page 7), and A-6 (page 11) respectively, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
210
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
396
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
530
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Duan compound W-7 is analogous to the instant adjustment compound, D-2 is analogous to the instant donor compound, and A-6 is analogous to the instant acceptor compound.
Examiner is interpreting this combination of compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim. Support for this interpretation comes from the use of Compounds W-7 and D-2 as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 9 (D-2) and 15 (W-7). Support for (A-6) is evidenced by Guo who teaches that compound (A-6) (Guo compound TRZ-3SO2) has a HOMO value of -7.02 eV and a LUMO value of -3.74 eV (Table 1). 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 donor, acceptor, and wide band-gap compounds of Duan read on the claims.
Duan is silent to the HOMO/LUMO energy level relationships of these compounds. However, these properties are considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the donor, acceptor, and wide band-gap compounds of Duan are used as an exciplex comprising a donor and acceptor molecule and a wide band-gap material in the emissive layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed HOMO/LUMO level relationship described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Duan, 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 Duan was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Duan includes each compound of the composition claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Duan being a lack of the aforementioned combination of compounds 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 donor molecule, acceptor molecule, and wide band-gap molecule from each of the finite lists of possible compounds to arrive at the mixture of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a composition comprising a wide band-gap material which increases the distance between the donor molecule and the acceptor molecule, and reduces the degree of overlap between the HOMO and LUMO of the formed exciplex body and the singlet-triplet energy difference, thereby increasing reverse intersystem crossing and utilization rate of excitons, suppressing the Dexter energy transfer, and improving the luminous efficiency of the device (paragraph 0027), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E), whereupon a composition with the claimed properties would flow naturally.
With respect to claim 2, Duan teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting donor compound D-2 to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as set forth on page 9 of the instant specification. Similarly, compound A-6 is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim as Guo teaches that compound (A-6) (Guo compound TRZ-3SO2) has a HOMO value of -7.02 eV, as discussed above. 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 Duan read on the claims.
Duan is silent to the specific HOMO value of each compound. However, these values are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as donor and acceptor compounds in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Duan, 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 Duan was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 3, Duan teaches the light emitting material of claim 1, as discussed above.
Donor compound D-2 and the wide band-gap material W-7 are interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as set forth on pages 9 (D-2) and 15 (W-7) of the instant specification. Similarly, compound A-6 is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim as Guo teaches that compound (A-6) (Guo compound TRZ-3SO2) has a triplet energy level of 2.95 eV (page 943, Table 1). 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 Duan read on the claims.
Duan is silent to the lowest excited triplet energy level value of each compound. However, these values are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as donor, acceptor, and adjustment compounds in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Duan, 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 Duan was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 4, Duan teaches the material of claim 1, and Duan also teaches an example light emitting layer comprising 30 wt% of the donor/acceptor exciplex and 3 wt% of a fluorescent doping dye (paragraph 0047). Duan teaches that the remainder of the light emitting layer is comprised of the wide band-gap (adjustment) compound (paragraph 0041, line 4). This implies that the wide band-gap material is present in the amount of 67 wt%.
With respect to claim 5, Duan teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above.
Donor compound D-2 and the wide band-gap material W-7 are interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as set forth on pages 9 (D-2) and 15 (W-7) of the instant specification. Similarly, compound A-6 is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it meets the requirements of parent claim 1. 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 Duan read on the claims.
Duan is silent to the emission intensity from the donor-acceptor exciplex (D-2 and A-6) and the emission intensity of the adjustment (W-7) compound. However, these values are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as donor, acceptor, and adjustment compounds in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Duan, 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 Duan was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 6, Duan teaches the material of claim 1, and Duan also teaches that the light emitting layer may also comprise a fluorescent material (paragraph 0024).
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 include a fluorescent light emitting compound in addition to the compounds which form an exciplex, as taught by Duan.
With respect to claim 9, Duan teaches the material of claim 1, and Duan also teaches that the described compounds increase the distance between the donor and acceptor molecules, reduce the overlap between the HOMO and LUMO of the exciplex body, reduce the singlet-triplet energy level difference, and increase the rate of reverse intersystem crossing, which improves the utilization rate of excitons (paragraph 0027). While this describes the process and goal of thermally activated delayed fluorescence, Duan does not use those words to describe type of emission.
Donor compound D-2 and the wide band-gap material W-7 are interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as set forth on pages 9 (D-2) and 15 (W-7) of the instant specification. Similarly, compound A-6 is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim as it meets the requirements of parent claim 1. 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 Duan read on the claims.
Duan is silent to the type(s) of emission from the donor-acceptor exciplex (D-2 and A-6) and the adjustment (W-7) compound. However, these values are considered to be properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as donor, acceptor, and adjustment compounds in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Duan, 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 Duan was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 10, Duan teaches the material of claim 1, and Duan also teaches that composition may be used to form the emissive layer of an organic light emitting diode (OLED) (paragraphs 0055 and 0003).
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 composition in an OLED device, as taught by Duan.
With respect to claim 11, Duan teaches material of claim 1, and Duan also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer (paragraph 0030) comprising a light emitting exciplex layer (paragraph 0033), and the light emitting exciplex layer comprises the material.
With respect to claim 12, Duan teaches material of claim 6, and Duan also teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer (paragraph 0030) comprising a light-emitting layer (paragraph 0039), and the light emitting layer comprises the material (paragraph 0040).
With respect to claim 13, Duan teaches the material of claim 1, and Duan also teaches that a known application of an OLED is a display device (paragraph 0003).
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 material in a display device, as taught by Duan.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Duan et al. (WO 2019/128105 A1, using US 2020/0083461 A1 as an official translation and for references) as applied above, and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu, J.Y., Feng, X., Seto, N., Do, J.H., Zeng, X., Tao, Z., Yamato, T., 2013, Synthesis, structural and spectral properties of diarylamino-functionalized pyrene derivatives via Buchwald-Hartwig amination reaction, Journal of Molecular Structure 1035, 19-26).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Duan teaches the light emitting material of claim 6, as discussed above.
However, Duan does not teach nor fairly suggest selecting a material which would result in emission intensity which is at least 10 times the emission intensity of the exciplex or at least 50 times the emission intensity of the adjustment compound.
In analogous art, Hu teaches diarylamino-functionalized pyrene derivatives which have bright fluorescent emissions from sky-blue to green, high emission efficiency, high thermal stability, and good solubility in common organic solvents (abstract).
Hu teaches one of these compounds is compound 10a, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
198
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 compound 10a of Hu as the emitter in the light emitting material of Duan in order to obtain bright fluorescent emissions from sky-blue to green, high emission efficiency, high thermal stability, and good solubility in common organic solvents, as taught by Hu.
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 60 (4DPA-Pyr) 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 Hu reads on the claims.
Hu is silent to the emission intensity of the 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 compound 10a is used as a light emitting compound 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 Duan and Hu, 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 Hu was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Duan et al. (WO 2019/128105 A1, using US 2020/0083461 A1 as an official translation and for references) as applied above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (WO 2018/237385 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Duan teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Duan does not teach nor fairly suggest a method which would result in an OLED display with the instant device structure.
In analogous art, Suzuki teaches a light emitting material which exhibits delayed fluorescence for use in an organic light emitting diode (abstract).
Suzuki also teaches a method of producing an OLED display comprising the steps of forming a barrier layer on a base material, forming plural display units on the barrier layer, each on a cell panel basis, forming an encapsulation layer on each display unit of the cell panel, and forming an organic film by coating on the interface portion between the cell panel, wherein the organic film contains the light emitting material (page 92, lines 24-31).
Suzuki teaches that this method reduces the defect rate of the product and stabilizes product quality (page 95, lines 28-29).
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 form an OLED using the material of Duan using the method of Suzuki in order to reduce the defect rate of the product and stabilize product quality, as taught by Suzuki.
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 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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights