DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 08/05/25.
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
The rejection of Claim 17 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 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 05/07/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of Claims 15, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 2019/0259959 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 05/07/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claims 1-8, 10-14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 2019/0259959 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 05/07/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 2019/0259959 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 05/07/25 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 2019/0259959 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0292659 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 05/07/25 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 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.
The claim, which is dependent on Claim 1, fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Notice that Claim 1 already requires that the composition satisfies Requirement A.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-8, 10-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 2019/0259959 A1).
Duan et al. disclose an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising a light-emitting layer (film) comprising host material and dopant (guest) material; the host material (i.e., composition) is an exciplex comprising a combination of electron donor material and electron acceptor (“receptor”) material, while the dopant material is a thermally activated delayed fluorescent material (Abstract; [0008]). The host material is formed by “mixing electron donor material and electron receptor material” ([0040]). The electron donor material includes the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
344
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 2) (donor compound) such that R = hydrogen or substituent (substituted carbazolyl) of Applicant’s formula (3), while the electron acceptor material includes the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
336
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 9) (acceptor compound) such that X1-2 = N, R1-2 = unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl), and R3 = substituted aryl group (substituted phenyl group having a substituted diarylamino group) of Applicant’s formula (1); L1 = unsubstituted arylene group (phenylene), n = 1, and R6-7 = substituted or unsubstituted aryl group (substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group which are joined together) of Applicant’s formula (2).
It is the position of the Office that the light-emitting composition comprising the exciplex comprising the above compounds (D-2) and (A-25) as disclosed by Duan et al., respectively, would be a “phosphorescent composition” (wherein the acceptor compound emits phosphorescence) and would inherently read on the energy limitations (including requirements A and B1) as recited in the claims. Evidence is provided by the fact that compound (D-2) is exactly identical to Compound D1 as preferred by the Applicant as the donor compound (see [0074] of the present national phase publication); furthermore, notice that compound (A-25) is merely a positional isomer to the compound as preferred by the Applicant as the acceptor compound (see [0067] of the present Specification publication) which differs only in the position of the substituted triazinyl group on the phenylene) and thus can be expected to have highly similar and chemical properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (US 2019/0259959 A1) as applied above and in further view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0292659 A1).
Duan et al. discloses the composition of Claim 6 as shown above in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. Duan et al. discloses that the electron acceptor material has an electron-transporting property and include groups such as triazine and/or carbazole ([0017]-[0018]). However, Duan et al. does not explicitly disclose the acceptor compound as recited in the claim.
Kim et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
448
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 7) (identical to Applicant’s preferred acceptor compound embodiment as found in [0067] of the present national phase publication) which is disclosed to have electron-transporting properties and serves as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device ([0039]-[0040]), [0078]); the utilization results in a device with improved life and luminous efficiency (Abstract). It would have been obvious to utilize, instead, the compound as disclosed by Kim et al. (above) as the electron acceptor material in the composition as disclosed by Duan e al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kim et al., which is directed to a known host material (with known electron-transporting properties, comprising carbazole and triazine groups), the use of which results in a device with improved life and luminous efficiency.
Response to Arguments
15. The Applicant argues that as Claim 1 has now been amended such “that the composition is a phosphorescent composition consisting of a donor compound and an acceptor compound,” the cited prior art no longer reads on the claims (page 7); the Applicant argues that the “claimed invention of the present application does not include a thermal activated delayed fluorescent material” and is thus novel as Duan et al. “does not teach or suggest that the inventive organic electroluminescent device emits phosphorescence” (pages 8-9). Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that nowhere in the claims does it require that the organic electroluminescent (EL) device emit phosphorescence; rather, it is only the composition consisting of the donor and acceptor compounds that is phosphorescent (with the acceptor emitting phosphorescence). As shown in the above rejection, Duan et al. discloses a separate host material consisting only of a donor compound and an acceptor compound which exist to transfer energy to (or “sensitize”) the dopant material for light emission ([0006], [0023] of Duan et al.); such a composition has been argued by the Office to fully read on the photophysical limitations as recited in the Applicant’s claims (see above rejection). The host material as disclosed by Duan et al. has a separate existence in the organic EL device, and is formed by mixing the electron donor and acceptor compounds; the host material is then doped with dopant material, the latter of which ultimately emits light ([0040 of Duan et al.).
Conclusion
16. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
