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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 02/13/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the abstract as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn due to reconsideration of the original grounds of objection.
The objections to claims 1-5 and 8 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 02/13/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-10 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 paragraphs 8-10 of the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/13/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-10 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 paragraphs 11-12 of the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/13/2026. The rejection is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language.
The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (US 2016/0056393 A1) in view of Kim (US 2021/0403489 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 02/13/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument on page 11 of the reply dated 02/13/2026 with respect to the objection to the abstract as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 of the reply dated 02/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On page 11, Applicant argues the rejection under 112(b) is overcome due to the newly added amendment that replaces “if” with “when” in claims 1 and 6.
Examiner's response –In claims 1 and 6, replacing “if” with “when” does not make the limitation clearer, as the limitation still appears to be conditional on whether the respective energy levels and the number of the atom (a) in the condensed hetero ring skeleton per 1000 of the molecular weight of the compound (F) are expressed as TP, TF, Nf, and SF. That is, it is still unclear if formulas (A), (B), and (C) are positively required if variables other than TP, TF, Nf, and SF are used.
For example, a reference may refer to the lowest triplet excited state of a phosphorescent compound as TD and may refer to the lowest triplet excited state of a compound (F) as TA. TD and TA are not the same expressions as TP and TF, respectively, and (by using the word “when”) the limitation of claim 1 seems to only require formula (A) to be satisfied when variables TP and TF are used.
To make the limitation clear, the formulas and variables must positively be recited. For example, formula (A) would be positively required if the limitation recited: wherein the formula (A) is satisfied, wherein TP (eV) represents the value of the energy level of the lowest triplet excited state of the phosphorescent compound and TF (eV) represents the value of the energy level of the lowest triplet excited state of the compound (F).
Applicant's argument –On pages 11-12, Applicant argues the compound of Kim having Formula I encompasses a myriad of different compounds, and there is no teaching in Kim as to which compounds would met the requirements set forth in paragraphs [0098]-[0103] of Oikawa. Additionally, Applicant argues there is no indication in Kim as to which compounds of Kim when paired with one of the myriad compounds taught by Oikawa having Formula (I) would satisfy Expressions (1) to (3) of Oikawa. Accordingly, Applicant argues determining the compounds would require undue experimentation and thus it would have not been obvious as to which compounds pairs would meet the required conditions of Oikawa and the present claims and there is no reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner's response –As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Kim teaches compounds represented by Formula 1 and these compounds exhibit thermally activated delayed fluorescence, as evidenced by Hatakeyama (see Kim, abstract; Hatakeyama, ¶ [0013]-[0016], [0046], and [0048]). As the compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 exhibit thermally activated delayed fluorescence and Oikawa teaches the thermally-activated delayed fluorescent compounds are not limited to a specific structure (see Oikawa, ¶ [0105]), there is nothing in Kim or Oikawa to suggest compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 would not successfully function as a thermally-activated delayed fluorescent compound in the device of Oikawa. The prior art references do not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the combination of compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 in the device of Oikawa and the prior art references do not expressly exclude their combination.
While Kim does not indicate which compounds would satisfy Expressions (1) to (3) when combined with a phosphorescent metal complex of Oikawa, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145 III. Given that Oikawa teaches an organic electroluminescent element obtains improved quantum efficiency by including a combination of a thermally-activated delayed fluorescent compound and a phosphorescent metal complex that satisfy Expressions (1) and (3) in an organic layer (¶ [0016]-[0019] and [0038]), and Kim teaches compounds represented by Formula 1 which exhibit thermally activated delayed fluorescence and provide an organic light emitting device with improved driving voltage, light efficiency, and service life characteristics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the TADF compound CC2TA of Oikawa’s element 2-12 with one of Kim’s exemplified compounds on pages 8-21, wherein the compound is further selected such that Oikawa’s Expressions (1) and (3) are satisfied, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the benefits discussed above taught by both Oikawa and Kim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected 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.
Claim 1 recites “when the value of the energy level of the lowest triplet excited state of the phosphorescent compound is expressed as TP (eV), the value of the energy level of the lowest triplet excited state of the compound (F) is expressed as TF (eV) and the number of the atom (a) in the condensed hetero ring skeleton per 1000 of the molecular weight of the compound (F) is expressed as Nf, the formula (A) and (B) are satisfied.” It is unclear if formulas (A) and (B) are positively required when the value of the energy level of the lowest triplet excited state of the phosphorescent compound, the value of the energy level of the lowest triplet excited state of the compound (F), and the number of the atom (a) in the condensed hetero ring skeleton per 1000 of the molecular weight of the compound (F) are expressed as other than TP, TF, and Nf, respectively. For example, if the value of the energy level of the lowest triplet excited state of the phosphorescent compound is represented by T1, it is unclear if formula (A) is positively required. For purposes of examination, formulas (A) and (B) will be interpreted as being positively required.
Claim 6 recites “when the value of the energy level of the lowest singlet excited state of the compound (F) is expressed as SF (eV), the formula (C) is satisfied.” It is unclear if formula (C) is positively required when the value of the energy level of the lowest singlet excited state of the compound (F) is expressed as other than SF. For example, if the value of the energy level of the lowest singlet excited state of the compound (F) is represented by S1, it is unclear if formula (C) is positively required. For purposes of examination, formula (C) will be interpreted as being positively required.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (US 2016/0056393 A1) in view of Kim (US 2021/0403489 A1), as evidenced by Hatakeyama (US 2015/0236274 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-10, Oikawa teaches a coating liquid (composition) for forming a light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent element, wherein the element obtains improved quantum efficiency (abstract). In particular, the organic electroluminescent element includes one or more organic layers disposed between and anode and a cathode wherein the organic layer includes a thermally-activated delayed fluorescent compound and a phosphorescent metal complex (¶ [0016]-[0019] and [0038]). Examples of such elements include element 2-12 which comprises the TADF compound CC2TA, the phosphorescent metal complex P-136, and the host compound S-58 in the emission layer (Table 6 on pg. 102; ¶ [0341]-[0342]).
Oikawa teaches the triplet energy levels of the TADF compound and the phosphorescent metal complex satisfy the Expressions (1) and (3) (¶ [0019]).
(1): -0.2 eV ≤ [S1(TADF)-T1(P)] ≤ 1.0 eV
(3): -0.2 eV ≤ [T1(TADF)-T1(P)] ≤ 0.5 eV
By satisfying these Expressions, the phosphorescent metal complex can effectively exert the heavy atom effect on the thermally-activated delayed fluorescent compound without dominant energy transfer from the thermally-activated delayed fluorescent compound to the phosphorescent metal complex, can effectively trap the energy to be thermally deactivated of triplet excitons constituting 75% of excitons of the TADF compound, and so that light is emitted from both compounds at the same time (¶ [0041]-[0042], [0045]-[0046] and [0085).
P-136 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1 (see structure on pg. 175).
P-136:
PNG
media_image1.png
126
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image2.png
188
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
P-136 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
M1 represents an iridium atom;
n1 represents 3 and n2 represents 0;
in each instance, ring L1 represents an aromatic hetero ring having substituents;
in each instance, ring L2 represents an aromatic hydrocarbon ring;
each ring L1 has at least one group represented by the formula (1-T);
R1T represents an alkyl group (claim 5).
Additionally, P-136 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula (1-A) wherein: ring L1A is a diazole ring; and R11A is a group represented by the formula (1-T) and R12A and R13A are each hydrogen (claim 2).
The TADF compound CC2TA fails to satisfy the formula (B). However, examples of thermally-activated delayed fluorescent compounds taught by Oikawa are non-limiting (¶ [0105]).
Kim teaches an organic light emitting device having improved driving voltage, light efficiency, and service life characteristics by including therein a compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract). In Formula 1, L1 to L5 are each an alkylene group and Ar1 to Ar5 are each an aryl or heteroaryl group (¶ [0009]-[0011]). The compound represented by Formula 1 may be used as a light emitting dopant of a light emitting layer and examples thereof include the compounds listed on pages 8-21 (¶ [0131]).
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
331
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama recites polycyclic aromatic compounds represented by general formula (1) exhibit thermally activated delayed fluorescence (see Hatakeyama, ¶ [0046] and [0048]). Since compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 read on Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) wherein: rings A to C are each a substituted or unsubstituted aryl ring; Y1 is B; X1 and X2 are each N-R; and R represents a substituted or unsubstituted aryl (see Hatakeyama, ¶ [0013]-[0016]), compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 exhibit thermally activated delayed fluorescence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the TADF compound CC2TA with one of Kim’s exemplified compounds on pages 8-21, wherein the compound is further selected such that Oikawa’s Expressions (1) and (3) are satisfied, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having improved driving voltage, light efficiency, and service life characteristics, as taught by Kim.
The exemplified compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 on pages 8-21 are expected to satisfy the claimed formula (B). For example, the exemplified compound 1 on page 8 has the structure below and has a molecular weight of 782.92 g/mol. Thus, Nf is 3.8.
Compound 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
274
305
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, Oikawa teaches the triplet energy levels of the TADF compound and the phosphorescent metal complex satisfy the Expressions (3): -0.2 eV ≤ [T1(TADF)-T1(P)] ≤ 0.5 eV (¶ [0019]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, or where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the pertinent art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05. Accordingly, the device of Oikawa in view of Kim satisfies formula (A).
Similarly, as discussed above, Oikawa teaches the triplet energy levels of the TADF compound and the phosphorescent metal complex satisfy the Expressions (3): -0.2 eV ≤ [S1(TADF)-T1(P)] ≤ 1.5 eV (¶ [0019]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, or where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the pertinent art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05. Accordingly, the device of Oikawa in view of Kim satisfies formula (C) (claim 6).
Alternatively, with respect to claimed formulas (A) and (C), the instant specification recites that instant compound P2 has a TP of 2.89 eV and instant compounds F2 to F5 each have a TF within the range of 2.53 eV to 2.70 eV and a SF within the range of 2.96 eV to 3.17 eV (see Table 1 on pg. 268). Accordingly, a composition comprising instant compound P2 and any one of instant compounds F2 to F5 satisfies the claimed formula (A) and the claimed formula (C). Since Oikawa in view of Kim teach compound P-136 (which is substantially similar in structure to instant compound P2) and compounds of Kim’s Formula 1 (which are substantially similar in structure to the instant compounds F2 to F5), Oikawa in view of Kim satisfying the claimed formula (A) and the claimed formula (C) is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per claim 8, as discussed above, the light emitting layer further includes host compound S-58 which reads on the claimed formula (H-1) wherein: AH1 and AH2 are each a monovalent hetero ring group; nH1 represents 1 and nH2 each represent 0; nH3 represents 1; LH1 represents a divalent hetero ring group; and LH2 is not required to be present.
S-58:
PNG
media_image5.png
169
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Per claim 9, Oikawa teaches the coating composition for the light emitting layer further includes a solvent (¶ [0339]).
Regarding claims 2-3, Oikawa in view of Kim teach the organic electroluminescent element comprising the phosphorescent metal complex P-136 and a TADF compound of one of Kim’s compounds listed on pages 8-21, as described above with respect to claim 1.
P-136 fails to read on the claimed formula (1-A-2). However, Oikawa teaches examples of the phosphorescent metal complex include P-113 (¶ [0118]; structure on pg. 27).
Therefore, given the teachings of Oikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute P-136 with P-113, and to further select the TADF compound from one of Kim’s exemplified compounds on pages 8-21 such that Oikawa’s Expressions (1) and (3) are satisfied, because Oikawa teaches P-113 may suitably be selected as the phosphorescent metal complex. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the compound would be useful as the phosphorescent metal complex in the organic electroluminescent element of Oikawa in view of Kim and possess the benefits taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select P-113, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified phosphorescent metal complexes taught by Oikawa, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the phosphorescent metal complex in the organic electroluminescent element of Oikawa in view of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Oikawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the exemplified phosphorescent metal complexes having the benefits taught by Oikawa in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
P-113 is reproduced below and reads on the claimed formulas (1-A) and (1-A-2) wherein: Ring L1A represents a triazole ring; E11A and E13A each represent a nitrogen atom and E12A represents a carbon atom; R11A represents a group represented by formula (1-T) wherein R1T is a substituted aryl group, R12A represents a group represented by formula (1-T) wherein R1T is an alkyl group, R13A is not required to be present; and R21A to R24A are each hydrogen.
P-113:
PNG
media_image6.png
154
204
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Oikawa in view of Kim teach the organic electroluminescent element comprising P-136 and one of Kim’s compounds listed on pages 8-21, as described above with respect to claim 1.
P-136 fails to read on the claimed formula (1-B). However, Oikawa teaches examples of the phosphorescent metal complex include P-6 (¶ [0118]; structure on pg. 12).
Therefore, given the teachings of Oikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute P-136 with P-6, and to further select the TADF compound from one of Kim’s exemplified compounds on pages 8-21 such that Oikawa’s Expressions (1) and (3) are satisfied, because Oikawa teaches P-6 may suitably be selected as the phosphorescent metal complex. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the compound would be useful as the phosphorescent metal complex in the organic electroluminescent element of Oikawa in view of Kim and possess the benefits taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select P-6, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified phosphorescent metal complexes taught by Oikawa, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the phosphorescent metal complex in the organic electroluminescent element of Oikawa in view of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Oikawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the exemplified phosphorescent metal complexes having the benefits taught by Oikawa in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
P-6 is reproduced below and reads on the claimed formula (1-B) wherein: Ring L1B represents a pyridine ring; E11B and E14B represents a carbon atom; R11B to R14B and R22B to R24B each represent hydrogen, and R21B represents a group represented by formula (1-T) wherein R1T is an alkyl group.
P-6:
PNG
media_image7.png
150
145
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights