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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at p32 first full paragraph that the references do not disclose the light emitting layer B comprising 1-5% by weight of depopulation agent SB, nor the claimed structures of SB. This argument is not convincing. As discussed in the rejection, Haldi discloses light emitting layer B comprises the material EB (which reads on claimed SB) present in 1-50% by weight [0071, 0073], and the rejections below cite the structure of both I-TADF and I-NRCT. Applicant has not specifically pointed out what aspect of the claimed structures are not disclosed.
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.
Claim(s) 16-24, 26-27 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldi et al (US 20180323394 A1).
Regarding the new limitations in the claims 16 and 30, Haldi discloses that the light emitting layer B comprises the material EB (which reads on claimed SB) present in 1-50% by weight [0071, 0073].
Haldi discloses an OLED device comprising a light emitting layer B [abstract, 0003, 0008-0012, 0079-0080, 0087-0088, 0118 et seq, p8-12, Examples] comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
342
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the disclosed first TADF material EB reads on the claimed SB and the disclosed second TADF material SB reads on the claimed EB.
Remember that the SB and EB are switched, Haldi also discloses that:
EHOMO(SB)−EHOMO(HB)≤0.3 eV and EHOMO(SB)−EHOMO(HB)≥−0.3 eV [0080], so when EHOMO(SB)−EHOMO(HB-) is less than 0 eV, this meets claimed formula (5a) because EHOMO(HB-) > EHOMO(SB). This also reads on claimed formula (6a) and (6b)
EHOMO(EB)−EHOMO(HB)≤0.3 eV and EHOMO(EB)−EHOMO(HB)≥−0.3 eV [0079], so when EHOMO(EB)−EHOMO(HB) is between 0.2 eV and 0.3 eV, this meets claimed formula (5b). This also reads on claimed formula (6a)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the invention of Haldi within the range of EHOMO(EB)−EHOMO(HB) is between 0.2 eV and 0.3 eV, and with the claimed range of amount of SB at 1-5wt%. This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.8 of formula (5b). Likewise, Haldi teaches an amount of EB (claimed SB) in the encompassing range of 0.1 to 50 weight percent. In short, it would have been obvious to use the embodiments of Haldi that overlap with the claimed ranges. 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), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Haldi also discloses the TADF materials have the same deltaEST values as claim 17 [0037]. The components are used in the same amounts as the instant claims [claim 21]. Regarding claim 22, Haldi discloses that ELUMO(SB-) <= ELUMO(EB) [0087-0088] (remembering that the SB and EB are switched). Both the first and second TADF materials EB and SB can have the same formula as claimed Formula I-TADF:
PNG
media_image2.png
245
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0118 et seq, p8-12, Examples].
Given that the TADF materials of Haldi have the same structure as the claims, as well as the same relative singlet and triplet energies and HOMO energies, they will act as depopulation agents. The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, claimed amounts, and substantially similar processes. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. depopulation activity would inherently be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants' position that this wouldn’t be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicants' position; and (2) it would be the Offices' position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar processes. See In re Spada, MPEP §2112.01, I and II.
Claim(s) 16-24, 26-27 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldi et al (US 20180323394 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (Advanced Materials, 2016, 28(14):2777-2781, DOI: 10.1002/adma.201505491),
If Applicant argues that Haldi does not disclose the claims with sufficient specificity to make them obvious, then this rejection applies concurrently.
Haldi, discussed above, does not explicitly the first TADF material as a depopulation agent.
Hatakeyama discloses OLEDs having an electroluminescent layer comprising a boron containing compound having the structure of the claimed Formula I-NRCT:
PNG
media_image3.png
134
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p2779].
Hatekayama teaches that these compounds act as TADF emitters as well as assistant dopants for fluorescent emitters, and provide near 100% IQE [pp2777-2781, bridging ¶]. The specification indicates that these compounds are useful as depopulation agents [p23].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the TADF emitters of Hatekayama as one of the TADF emitters of Haldi because Hatekayama teaches that they are useful assistant TADF dopants and provide near 100% IQE.
Claim(s) 16-24, 26-27 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldi et al (US 20180323394 A1) in view of Hatekayama2 (US 20150236274 A1).
If Applicant argues that Haldi does not disclose the claims with sufficient specificity to make them obvious, then this rejection applies concurrently.
Haldi, discussed above, does not explicitly the first TADF material as a depopulation agent.
Hatakeyama2 discloses OLEDs having an electroluminescent layer comprising a boron containing compound having the structure of the claimed Formula I-NRCT:
PNG
media_image4.png
177
222
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p4].
The polycyclic aromatic compound exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence, the compound is also useful as a fluorescent material for an organic EL element [0046]. Hatekayama2 teaches that these compounds when used as dopants provide an excellent organic EL element [abstract, p184 Table 5]. The specification indicates that these compounds are useful as depopulation agents [p24].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the TADF emitters of Hatekayama2 as one of the TADF emitters of Haldi because Hatekayama teaches that they provide an excellent organic EL element.
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 MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights