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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on May 20, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on November 17, 2023.
Claims 1 – 13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 18, 2024, December 11, 2024, March 12, 2025, June 12, 2025, August 19, 2025, November 26, 2025, May 1, 2026, and June 29, 2026, have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Objection
Claims 9 – 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 – 12 all contain language directed to Markush groups “consisting of atoms selected from the group of…” However, the words “carbon atom,” “hydrogen atom,” “deuterium atom,” etc. in the claim all appear to be missing an “s” at the end of the word atom.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 13 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.
Claim 1 requires an organic light-emitting device comprising a first organic compound, a second organic compound, and a third organic compound that satisfy condition (a): ES1(1)> ES1(2)> ES1(3). There is no structural limitations provided for any of the three compounds. The only functional requirement of the compounds is that the second organic compound is a delayed fluorescent material. The instant specification provides a single Example of a light emitting layer with the claimed relationship. Therefore, it is not clear that Applicant has provided a a sufficient number of species to adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, which could include any of a multitude of combination of compounds, as required by the MPEP (See 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 2 – 13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites that the light emitting layer is “composed only of a compound comprising atoms selected from the group consisting of…” This renders the claim indefinite because claim 1, upon which claim 9 is dependent, recites a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound which all have different singlet energy levels. Therefore, it is unclear which compound(s) claim 9 is referring to or how many compounds are required to be in the light emitting layer.
For examination purposes, the compound of claim 9 is interpreted as reading on any of the first compound, second compound or third compound.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites that the light emitting layer is “composed only of a compound comprising atoms selected from the group consisting of…” Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 1, which requires that the light-emitting layer has a first organic compound, a second organic compound, and a third organic compound. Therefore, claim 9 appears to fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends as claim 1 requires three compounds in the light-emitting layer but claim 9 defines the light-emitting layer as only containing one compound.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 – 4, 6, and 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakanotani (WO2020039708A1, using US20210202864A1 as the official English Language translation).
As per claims 1 – 3, Nakanotani teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer having a first organic compound, a second organic compound, wherein the second organic compound is a delayed fluorescent material, and third organic compound satisfying the following condition (a): ES1(1)> ES1(2)> ES1(3), wherein ES1(1) represents a lowest excited singlet energy of the first organic compound, ES1(2) represents a lowest excited single energy of the second organic compound, and ES1(3) represents a lowest excited singlet energy of the third organic compound (Nakanotani teaches an OLED with a light-emitting layer comprising a first organic compound, a second organic compound, and a third organic compound wherein the second organic compound is a delayed fluorescence material and the compounds satisfy Formula (A) ES1(A)>ES1(B)>ES1(C) (Abstract). In Example 1, Nakanotani teaches a device with an anode, a cathode and mCBP, compound 1 and TBPb co-deposited to form a light emitting layer ([0368]). mCBP is interpreted as the first organic compound, compound 1 is interpreted as the second organic compound and TBPb is interpreted as the third organic compound.)
An adjacent layer adjacent to the light emitting layer, wherein the adjacent layer contains the first organic compound (In the device of Example 1, a layer of mCBP is formed immediately before the light-emitting layer. This layer of mCBP is interpreted as the claimed adjacent layer. As there is no other component in this layer, it is interpreted as being composed only of the first organic compound as required by claim 2. It is formed between the anode and the light emitting layer, as required by claim 3.)
As per claim 4, Nakanotani teaches:
Wherein a thickness of the adjacent layer is less than 10 nm (In Example 1, the mCBP layer was formed with a thickness of 5 nm ([0368]).
As per claim 6, Nakanotani teaches:
Wherein a difference ΔEst between the lowest excited singlet state energy and the lowest excited triplet state energy at 77K of the second organic compound is 0.3 eV or less (As shown in Table 1, the ΔEst of compound 1 is 0.16 eV.)
As per claims 9 and 10, Nakanotani teaches:
Wherein the first organic compound is a compound consisting of atoms selected from the group consisting of carbon atom, hydrogen atom, deuterium atom, nitrogen atom, and oxygen atom (mCBP has a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
248
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which only contains carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen atoms as claimed.)
As per claims 11 and 13, Nakanotani teaches:
Wherein the second organic compound is a compound consisting of atoms selected from the group consisting of carbon atom, hydrogen atom, deuterium atom, nitrogen atom, oxygen atom and sulfur atom (Compound 1 has a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
210
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This structure only contains carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen atoms as claimed. This compound contains a cyanobenzene structure as required by claim 13.)
As per claim 12, Nakanotani teaches:
Wherein the third organic compound is a compound consisting of atoms selected from the group consisting of carbon atom, hydrogen atom, deuterium atom, nitrogen atom, boron atom, oxygen atom and sulfur atom (TBPb has a structure of
PNG
media_image3.png
194
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which only contains carbon and hydrogen atoms as claimed.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanotani (WO2020039708A1, using US20210202864A1 as the official English Language translation) as applied to claims 1 – 4, 6, and 9 – 13 above.
As per claim 5, Nakanotani teaches:
Wherein the thickness of the adjacent layer is less than one-sixth the thickness of the light emitting layer (In [0368], Nakanotani teaches that the layer of mCBP is 5 nm and the light emitting layer has a thickness is 30 nm. This ratio is exactly one-sixth, which is just above the claimed ratio. Examiner notes that a prima facie obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329, citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
As per claim 7, Nakanotani teaches:
Wherein a difference ΔEst between the lowest excited singlet state energy and the lowest excited triplet state energy at 77K of the third organic compound is 0.3 eV or less (In [0160], Nakanotani teaches that the third organic compound may be selected from a delayed fluorescence material. In [0034], Nakanotani teaches that delayed fluorescent materials have a ΔEst of less than 0.3 eV.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select any of the options for the third organic compound, including a delayed fluorescent material containing the claimed ΔEst value because Nakanotani teaches that delayed fluorescent compounds are predictably suitable for use as the third organic compound ([0160]).
As per claim 8, Nakanotani teaches:
Wherein the first organic compound, the second organic compound, and the third organic compound satisfy the following condition (b): ET1(1)> ET1(2)> ET1(3), wherein ET1(1) represents a lowest excited triplet energy at 77K of the first organic compound, ET1(2) represents a lowest excited triplet energy at 77K of the second organic compound, and ET1(3) represents a lowest excited triplet energy at 77K of the third organic compound (In [0028], Nakanotani teaches that preferably, the organic electroluminescent device satisfies the following formula ET1(A)> ET1(B) and that another relationship can be selected so that ET1(B)> ET1(C).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide three compounds with the claimed triplet level relationship based on the desire to predictably practice the invention of Nakanotani and based on the totality of the teachings of Nakanotani, as the components can preferably selected to have with the claimed relationship.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights