DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/20/26.
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 objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/17/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claims 6 and 12 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/17/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-5 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 112645968 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/17/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 112645968 A) in view of Lin et al. (US 2006/0008670 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/17/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2022/0052266 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 15-18, Li et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising a light-emitting layer comprising a host and dopant (dye) materials; the delayed fluorescent dopant materials include the following, the use of which results in a device with “excellent light-emitting efficiency and color purity” (Abstract; [0032], [0047]):
PNG
media_image1.png
294
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 5) such that m11-15 = 0, Ar11-14 = aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring-forming atoms (benzene), Ar15 = benzene, X11 = single bond, and Y11-12 = NRY11 (with RY11 = unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl) which is bonded to adjacent ring Ar13 or Ar14 via single bond) of Applicant’s Formula 1. Li et al. discloses that the organic EL device comprises a pair of electrodes, interposed therein a hole-transporting region, light-emitting layer, and electron-transporting region ([0030]).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, it is the position of the Office that the compound as disclosed by Li et al. (above) would inherently possess the properties as recited in the claims. Evidence is provided by the fact that it is fully encompassed by Applicant’s inventive Formula 1; the compound utilizes preferred embodiments for Ar11-15 (benzene) as well as R11-15 (hydrogen) and thus can be expected to have energies that lie within the rather wide range as recited in the claims.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0052266 A1) as applied above and in further view of Lin et al. (US 2006/0008670 A1).
Li et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device of Claim 16 as shown above. Li et al. discloses that its inventive compounds serve as (delayed fluorescent) emissive materials in the light-emitting layer (Abstract; [0032], [0047]); the use of its inventive dopant materials results in a device with improved light efficiency ([0047]). However, Li et al. does not explicitly disclose the additional presence of a phosphorescent material.
Lin et al. discloses an organic EL device comprising the following layers: substrate (110), anode (115), hole-injecting layer (120), hole-transporting layer (125), electron-blocking layer (130), light-emitting layer (135), hole-blocking layer (140), electron-transporting layer (145), electron-injecting layer (150), protective layer (155), and cathode (160) (Fig. 1; [0033]). The light-emitting layer comprises “dopants that tune the emission” including “a plurality of emissive materials capable of, in combination, emitting a desired spectrum of light”; emissive materials include phosphorescent and fluorescent materials ([0037]). The former includes platinum complexes ([0063], [0077], [0080]). It would have been obvious to further incorporate any of the inventive compounds as disclosed by Li et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Lin et al. (as fluorescent emissive materials). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Li et al., which teaches its inventive compounds as fluorescent emissive materials results in improved light-emitting efficiency of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-12 are currently objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication CN 112645968 A (herein referred to as “Wang et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The closest prior art is provided by Wang et al. (CN 112645968 A), which discloses TADF (emissive) compounds of the following forms:
PNG
media_image2.png
212
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0021] of Wang et al.) where X1-2 = O, S, Se, or Te (only), Y1 = S, Se, or Te (only), and Y2 = Se or Te (only) ([0009]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image3.png
94
118
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 141 of Wang et al.). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Wang et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses any of the compounds as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the nature of Y11-12 or the nature of Ar11-14 of Applicant’s Formula 1.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments on pages 79-82 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. 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
Prosecution Insights