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 is in response to the amendment filed May 21, 2026, which amends claim 1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims filed May 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the Office action mailed February 24, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office points out that each reference does not need to teach every aspect of the applicant’s claimed invention as long as the combination of the references will lead to the applicant’s claimed invention. The rejection below shows that the combination of references leads to the applicant’s claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the references do not teach the applicant’s claimed HOMO and LUMO limitations and claimed relationships, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The Office points out that the prior art references teach motivation to make a combination in the light emitting layer to arrive as a composition of materials that would meet the applicant’s claimed HOMO and LUMO limitations. The prior art does not need to specifically teach the HOMO and LUMO limitations. The prior art only needs to make obvious a combination of compounds for use in the light emitting layer that would inherently meet the applicant’s claimed HOMO and LUMO limitations. The HOMO and LUMO values are inherent to a compound and the combination of materials only needs to be obvious the specific energy relationship does not need to be specifically taught to meets the applicant’s claimed invention. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 1-20 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. The specification does not comprise support for the applicant’s added limitation “wherein an HOMO energy level and an LUMO energy level are determined based on a same testing method, and the determined HOMO energy level and the determined HOMO energy level and the determined LUMO energy level are actual values” does not comprise support in the specification. The specification only describes one way to determine the HOMO and LUMO values and that is in the examples. The specification does not make the broad claim that any method can be used to determine the energy level values.
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) 1-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0058124) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) in view of Kang et al. (J. Mater. Chem. C 2016, 4, 4512-452) (hereafter “Jang”) and Ihn et al. (US 2019/0181353) (hereafter “Ihn”).
Regarding claims 1-20, Hatakeyama teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and cathode (paragraph [0358]-[0379], Table 2). Hatakeyama teaches that the light emitting layer is composed of a blue emitting boron dopant and a host material (paragraph [0358]-[0379], Table 2). Hatakeyama teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
148
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(which is the same as applicant’s F-4 compound) as a dopant for the electroluminescent device (paragraphs [0357] and [0379], Table 2). Hatakeyama does not limit the material used as the host material (paragraphs [0143]-[0148]).
Hatakeyama does not teach where light emitting layer comprises an assisting dopant and does not teach where the mixture meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitations.
Jang teaches host materials for use with blue emitting TADF dopants (abstract). Jang teaches that the host can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(which is the same as applicant’s TDH-13) (page 4515 first full paragraph Scheme 1). Jang teaches that when
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is used as the host material, the device efficiency is improved while limiting red-shifting of the blue dopant (pages 4518 and 4519).
Ihn teaches an electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer composed of a host material, assisting dopant, and a fluorescent dopant (paragraphs [0006]-[0013]). Ihn teaches that the assisting dopant can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image3.png
240
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(which is the same as applicant’s TDE23 compound) (paragraphs [0135], [0267], and [0353]-[0358], Table 1). Ihn teaches the dopant emits blue light (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Ihn teaches that when the assisting dopant is added to the light emitting layer the device has improved efficiency and lifetime (paragraph [0364], Tables 3 and 4).
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 Hatakeyama, so the host material was
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as taught by Jang and the layer further comprises an assisting dopant,
PNG
media_image3.png
240
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as taught by Ihn. The motivation would have been to improve the efficiency and lifetime of device by limiting red-shifting of the blue emitted light.
The combination of references would lead to a mixture of
PNG
media_image1.png
148
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
240
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the applicant teaches the HOMO and LUMO values of these compounds.
PNG
media_image1.png
148
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
has a HOMO of -5.36 eV and a LUMO of -2.19 eV.
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
has a HOMO of -5.71 eV and a LUMO of -1.95 eV.
PNG
media_image3.png
240
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
has HOMO of -5.52 eV and a LUMO of -2.44 eV. These combination of materials meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitations.
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