DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 6/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 9-12 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 9 depends on claim 1 and recites that the second compound has a cyano group and a donor group bonded to the benzene ring, but claim 1 does not specify that the second compound has a benzene ring. The benzene ring of claim 9 therefore does not have a proper antecedent basis. Claims 10-12 depend on claim 9 but fail to remedy the deficiency and they are indefinite as well.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0323395 A1 to Haldi et al.
Regarding claim 1, Haldi et al. discloses an OLED having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/EBL/EML/HBL/ETL/EIL/cathode, wherein the EML comprises a host compound HB, a first TADF compound EB (corresponding to the claimed 2nd compound), and a second TADF compound SB (corresponding to the claimed 3rd compound), wherein most of the excited energy from EB is transferred to SB, which emits light with a wavelength of 420-500 nm (abstract), and wherein ES1 (HB) > ES1 (EB) > ES1 (SB) (see [0010]) and 0 eV < EHOMO(SB) – EHOMO(EB) < 0.3 eV (see [0078] – [0081]). All features of claim 1 are therefore disclosed. (See also the tables on page 21.)
The features of claims 2 and 5-6 are disclosed in the tables on page 21. Those of claim 3 are mentioned above. The features of claim 7 are inherent because the ionization energy of a compound can be approximated by its HOMO energy level and the HOMO energy level of SB is greater than that of EB. The features of claims 9 and 10 are disclosed in paragraph [0285].
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 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldi et al. in view of WO 2020/040298 A1 to Hatakeyama et al.
Regarding claim 8, the device of claim 1 is disclosed by Haldi et al. as explained above. While the light-emitting compound SB is a TADF compound having a donor moiety and an acceptor moiety [0120], it is not an organoboron compound. However, the use of TADF organoboron compounds for OLEDs is well established in the art. For instance, Hatakeyama et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises a host compound, a first TADF organoboron compound and a second TADF organoboron compound, wherein ES1 (host) ≥ ES1 (1st TADF compound) ≥ ES1 (2nd TADF compound), and wherein emission comes mostly from the 2nd TADF organoboron compound, which has a donor moiety and an acceptor moiety (p. 66) and has a general structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
202
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see page 66 of the attached English-language translation and page 7 of the original document). An example of the compound is
PNG
media_image2.png
176
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The TADF emitter is said to have not only a high luminous efficiency but also a high color purity (p. 67 of the translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the device disclosed by Haldi et al. by employing the organoboron compounds disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. and expect a favorable outcome. Claims 8 and 13 are unpatentable for being obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Haldi et al., which represents the closest prior art of record, teaches the opposite of claim 4, and there is not an obvious reason for a POSITA to modify the prior art device to arrive at the features of claims 11 and 12.
Other Notable Prior Art
OLEDs wherein the EML comprises a host compound, a TADF sensitizer and a TADF emitter are disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. (above) and US 2022/0149281 A1 to Li et al. The formula (a) of claim 1 is suggested by Hatakeyama et al., but neither references suggest the HOMO energy expression of formula (b). While formula (a) is rather obvious and expected, formula (b) is not.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights