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 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Geum relates to TADF emitters and does not discloser the emitter as an acceptor that accepts energy transferred from a sensitizer, and that Lee merely relates to phosphorescent sensitizer and does not remedy the deficiency. This argument is not convincing. The entire teaching of Lee is to sensitizing a TADF emitter. There can be no phosphorescent “sensitizer” without an “acceptor”. Lee teaches explicitly that energy is transferred from the phosphorescent sensitizer to the TADF emitter: “A deep blue emitting phosphorescent emitter was added in the conventional device structure of TADF OLEDs as a sensitizer to increase the contribution of the singlet excitons of the TADF emitter by the Forster energy transfer process” [abstract]. The acceptors/emitters of Lee are of the same class of boron emitters as Geum. Lee teaches and gives motivation for a straightforward improvement to the TADF emitters of Geum.
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) 2-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al (US 20210277026 A1) in view of Lee et al (J. Mater. Chem. C, 2019, 7, 8562).
Geum discloses OLEDs having a light emitting layer comprising TADF emitter of the formula [abstract, p8]:
PNG
media_image1.png
170
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Geum discloses embodiments that read on all the claimed boron compounds, for instance the first compound of claim 18 is disclosed explicitly:
PNG
media_image2.png
197
276
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[p32]. Regarding claim 20, the OLED includes a host in the EL layer that includes anthracene hosts and others [0212].
Geum does not disclose the claimed phosphorescent sensitizer.
Lee discloses the phosphorescence sensitized TADF OLEDs wherein the emitter compound is a boron containing TADF [abstract, Fig 3]
PNG
media_image3.png
96
126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the sensitizers are blue phosphors including:
PNG
media_image4.png
145
395
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p8564]. These compounds read on the claimed phosphorescent sensitizers, including the ligands of instant claim 5:
PNG
media_image5.png
184
183
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Lee teaches that the sensitizers resolve the low maximum luminance and serious efficiency drop at high brightness in deep blue thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) OLEDs doped with a boron derived TADF emitter [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed phosphorescent sensitizer in OLED of Geum because Lee teaches that the sensitizers resolve the low maximum luminance and serious efficiency drop at high brightness in deep blue thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) OLEDs doped with a boron derived TADF emitter.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geum et al (US 20210277026 A1) in view of Lee et al (J. Mater. Chem. C, 2019, 7, 8562) and further in view of Li et al (US 20170271611 A1).
Modified Geum, discussed above, does not disclose the claimed consumer products in claim 21. Geum does not specify what products the OLED can be used in. Geum teaches that the OLEDs have excellent light emitting efficiency, a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and a long service life [0020].
Li discloses an OLED that uses a phosphorescent sensitizer with a boron containing fluorescent emitter similar to Geum and the claims [abstract, Fig 3, p18] and teaches that the OLED is useful in a flat panel display [0004].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of Applicant’s invention to have used the OLED of Modified Geum in a flat panel display because Li teaches that similar OLEDs are suitable for preparing flat panel displays. One would also be motivated to use the OLED of Modified Geum because Geum teaches that the OLEDs have excellent light emitting efficiency, a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and a long service life. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141 (III), KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391.
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