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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group II, claims 11-29 drawn to a composition in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 12-13, 15, 17, and 20-21 have been canceled.
Claims 1-11, 14, 16, 18-19, and 22-30 are pending.
Claims 1-10 and 30 are withdrawn.
Claims 11, 14, 16, 19, and 22 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 12-13, 15, 17, and 20-21 obviate the rejections of claims 12-13, 15, 17, and 20-21 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 11 overcomes the rejection of claims 11-18 and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 11, 14, 16, 19, and 22 overcome:
the rejections of claims 11-12, 14, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1, hereafter Ito),
the rejections of claims 11-12 and 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (EP 2003108 A, hereafter Kubota),
the rejections of claims 11, 19, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kadoma et al (US 2011/0210316 A1, hereafter Kadoma ‘316) as evidenced by Takahashi et al. (US 2017/0271610 A1, hereafter Takahashi),
the rejections of claims 19-20 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1, hereafter Ito) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2010/0295444 A1, hereafter Kuma),
the rejections of claims 11-12, 14, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2010/0295444 A1) and Yoneda et al. (US 2004/0222736 A1, hereafter Yoneda),
the rejections of claims 11-18 and 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1) in view of Sakaki et al. (JP 2000/178548 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Sakaki),
the rejections of claims 19-20, 23, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (EP 2003108 A) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2010/0295444 A1),
the rejections of claims 11-12, 19-20, 23, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (EP 2003108 A) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2010/0295444 A1) and Yoneda et al. (US 2004/0222736 A1),
the rejections of claims 11, 19, and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadoma et al (US 2011/0210316 A1) in view of Yoneda et al. (US 2004/0222736 A1) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama) as evidenced by Takahashi et al. (US 2017/0271610 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 17-21 of the reply filed 05/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 11-12, 14, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito, the rejections of claims 19-20 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito/Kuma, and the rejections of claims 11-12, 14, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito/Kuma/Yoneda set forth in the Office Action of 02/25/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections refer to the composition comprising Compound H-7 of Ito and the Compound D-2 of Ito (section 17 of the last Office Action). The Compound D-2 of Ito does not read on the limitation of Formula H13 of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 17-21 of the reply filed 05/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 11-18 and 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito/Sakaki set forth in the Office Action of 02/25/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections refer to the composition comprising Compound H-7 of Ito and the Compound A of Sakaki (section 58 of the last Office Action). The Compound A of Sakaki does not read on the limitation of Formula H13 of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Ito does teach that a fused polycyclic aromatic compounds can be preferably used as the fluorescent dopant ([0076]).
Two sets of rejections are applied using two new teaching references, Hyun and Kadoma ‘463.
Hyun discloses a polycyclic aromatic compound used for an organic EL device (page 6, under “Problem to be solved”). Hyun exemplifies Compound 12 which is used as the fluorescent dopant of an organic EL device (Example 12 in Table 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
168
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 12 of Hyun has identical structure as Applicant’s formula (H13), wherein R139 and R140 are each a substituted or unsubstituted alkenyl group having 2 to 50 carbon atoms; Ar132 is a substituted alkyl group having 1 to 50 carbon atoms; Ar131 is H131, wherein L13 is a single bond; and Ar13 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (i.e. substituted phenyl).
It should be noted that the claim does not limit which substituents can be the substituent of the substituted alkenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R139 and R140, indicating any substituent can be the substituent of the alkenyl group; thus, two alkenyl groups happen to be connected because there is no restriction in the substituents of the alkenyl groups. Claims should be interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI).
Hyun teaches the compound provides improved light emitting efficiency and long lifespan (page 6, under “Effect of the Invention”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescence device of Ito by substituting the fluorescent dopant with the Compound 12 of Hyun, as taught by Ito and Hyun.
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Hyun comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 12 of Hyun as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 12 of Hyun is a second compound; the Compound 12 of Hyun is a first luminescent compound; and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
New grounds of rejection are applied over Ito in view of Hyun.
Similarly, another set of rejections are applied over Ito in view of Kadoma ‘463.
Kadoma ‘463 discloses a polycyclic aromatic fluorescent compound used as the light emitting material of an organic EL device ([0029], [0044], Light emitting element 1 in Table 2). The organic EL device emits blue light (CIE(x,y)=0.17 and 0.11) in Table 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
286
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 has identical structure as Applicant’s formula (H13).
Kadoma ‘463 teaches the invention of Kadoma ‘463 provides blue emission with high efficiency ([0050]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescence device of Ito by substituting the fluorescent dopant with the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463, as taught by Ito and Kadoma ‘463.
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kadoma ‘463 comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 is a second compound; the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 is a first luminescent compound; and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 17-21 of the reply filed 05/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 11-12 and 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota, the rejections of claims 19-20, 23, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota/Kuma, the rejections of claims 11-12, 19-20, 23, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota/Kuma/Yoneda set forth in the Office Action of 02/25/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections refer to the composition comprising Compound BAN-17 of Kubota and the Compound BD-1 of Kubota (section 21 of the last Office Action). The Compound BD-1 of Kubota does not read on the limitation of Formula H13 of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 17-21 of the reply filed 05/11/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 11, 19, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kadoma ‘316/Takahashi, and the rejections of claims 11, 19, and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadoma ‘316/Yoneda/Hatakeyama/Takahashi set forth in the Office Action of 02/25/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections need to be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections refer to the composition comprising Compound PCPDBq of Kadoma ‘316 and the Compound PCBNBB of Kadoma ‘316 (section 26 of the last Office Action). Both compounds do not read on the limitation of Formula H13 of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 11, 16, 18, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1, hereafter Ito) in view of Hyun et al. (KR 2016/0054864 A, the original document is referred to for the figures and tables, and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Hyun).
Regarding claims 11, 16, 18, and 26-28, Ito discloses a compound used for an organic EL device ([0010]) and exemplifies an organic EL device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 as a host, Compound D-2 as a dopant), and a cathode (Example 20 in Table 1, [0139]-[0141]).
PNG
media_image3.png
168
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound H-1 of Ito has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (H13).
The fluorescent dopant of the organic EL device of Ito (D-2) does not comprise a benzanthracene dopant; however, Ito does teach that a fused polycyclic aromatic compounds can be preferably used as the fluorescent dopant ([0076]).
Hyun discloses a polycyclic aromatic compound used for an organic EL device (page 6, under “Problem to be solved”). Hyun exemplifies Compound 12 which is used as the fluorescent dopant of an organic EL device (Example 12 in Table 2). The organic EL device emits blue light (CIE(x,y)=0.13 and 0.14)). Because the Compound 12 is the only fluorescent dopant of the device, the Compound 12 is necessarily a blue light emitting material (i.e. the maximum peak wavelength of 500 nm or less).
PNG
media_image1.png
168
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 12 of Hyun has identical structure as Applicant’s formula (H13), wherein R139 and R140 are each a substituted or unsubstituted alkenyl group having 2 to 50 carbon atoms; Ar132 is a substituted alkyl group having 1 to 50 carbon atoms; Ar131 is H131, wherein L13 is a single bond; and Ar13 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (i.e. substituted phenyl).
It should be noted that the claim does not limit which substituents can be the substituent of the substituted alkenyl groups at the positions corresponding to R139 and R140, indicating any substituent can be the substituent of the alkenyl group; thus, two alkenyl groups happen to be connected because there is no restriction in the substituents of the alkenyl groups. Claims should be interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI).
Hyun teaches the compound provides improved light emitting efficiency and long lifespan (page 6, under “Effect of the Invention”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescence device of Ito by substituting the fluorescent dopant with the Compound 12 of Hyun, as taught by Ito and Hyun.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide improved light emitting efficiency and long lifespan, based on the teaching of Hyun.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of fluorescent dopants would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Hyun comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 12 of Hyun as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 12 of Hyun is a second compound; the Compound 12 of Hyun is a first luminescent compound; and the emitting layer materials are a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 11, 16, 18, and 26-28.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1) in view of Hyun et al. (KR 2016/0054864 A, the original document is referred to for the figures and tables, and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 11, 16, 18, and 26-28 above, further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0305242 A1, hereafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 29, the Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Hyun reads on all the features of claim 11 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 12 of Hyun as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 12 of Hyun is a second compound; and the device emits blue light.
The device is not emitting a while light emitting device comprising a second emitting layer.
Takahashi discloses an organic EL device comprising a first emitting layer and a second emitting layer (Fig. 2), wherein the T1 energy of the first dopant is the lower than the T1 energy of the second host and dopants.
Takahashi teaches the device of Takahashi is a white light emitting device comprising a red light emitting material (i.e. first dopant in Fig. 2) and a blue light emitting material (i.e. second dopant in Fig. 2).
Takahashi teaches that the lowest triplet excitation energy of the first dopant can be a trap state and can be controlled by concentration of the first dopant material such that a long lifetime and improved emission efficiency can be achieved ([0024])
Takahashi exemplifies red dopants having lower triplet energy than the blue dopants (i.e. T1(RD13) = 1.24 eV in Table 4).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Hyun by incorporating a red emitting layer comprising a red dopant which has the lower triplet energy than those of the blue emitting layer materials including the Compound H-7 of Ito and the Compound 12 of Hyun, as taught by Ito, Hyun, and Takahashi.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a trap state by a red dopant whose concentration is adjusted such that the device provides a long lifetime and improved emission efficiency can be achieved based on the teaching of Takahashi.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Hyun and Takahashi comprising an anode, an first emitting layer (blue, Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 12 of Hyun as a dopant), a second emitting layer containing a red dopant of Takahashi, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 12 of Hyun is a second compound; the red dopant of Takahashi is a third compound; T1(Compound H-7 of Ito) > T1 (a red dopant of Takahashi); and T1(Compound 12 of Hyun) > T1 (a red dopant of Takahashi).
Claims 11, 14, 16, 18, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1) in view of Kadoma et al. (US 2016/0126463 A1, hereafter Kadoma ‘463).
Regarding claims 11, 16, 18, and 26-28, Ito discloses a compound used for an organic EL device ([0010]) and exemplifies an organic EL device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 as a host, Compound D-2 as a dopant), and a cathode (Example 20 in Table 1, [0139]-[0141]).
PNG
media_image3.png
168
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound H-1 of Ito has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (H13).
The fluorescent dopant of the organic EL device of Ito (D-2) does not comprise a benzanthracene dopant; however, Ito does teach that a fused polycyclic aromatic compounds can be preferably used as the fluorescent dopant ([0076]).
Kadoma ‘463 discloses a polycyclic aromatic fluorescent compound used as the light emitting material of an organic EL device ([0029], [0044], Light emitting element 1 in Table 2). The organic EL device emits blue light (CIE(x,y)=0.17 and 0.11) in Table 4). Because the Compound 100 is the only fluorescent emitter of the device, the Compound 100 is necessarily a blue light emitting material (i.e. the maximum peak wavelength of 500 nm or less).
PNG
media_image2.png
286
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 has identical structure as Applicant’s formula (H13).
Kadoma ‘463 teaches the invention of Kadoma ‘463 provides blue emission with high efficiency ([0050]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescence device of Ito by substituting the fluorescent dopant with the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463, as taught by Ito and Kadoma ‘463.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide blue emission with high efficiency, based on the teaching of Kadoma ‘463.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of fluorescent dopants would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kadoma ‘463 comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 is a second compound; the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 is a first luminescent compound; and the emitting layer materials are a composition, meeting all the limitations of claims 11, 16, 18, and 26-28.
Regarding claim 14, the Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kadoma ‘463 reads on all the features of claim 11 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 is a second compound.
In the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463, the substituent at the position corresponding to R11 is hydrogen which does not read on the limitation of the instant claim; however, Kadoma ‘463 does teach the substituent R11 of Formula G1 can be an unsubstituted phenyl group ([0030]) and exemplifies Compound 106 ([0199]).
PNG
media_image4.png
322
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kadoma ‘463 by substituting the fluorescent dopant with the Compound 106 of Kadoma ‘463, as taught by Ito and Kadoma ‘463.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of fluorescent dopants represented by Formula G1 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kadoma ‘463 (2) comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 106 of Kadoma ‘463 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 106 of Kadoma ‘463 is a second compound; the Compound 106 of Kadoma ‘463 is a first luminescent compound; and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1) in view of Kadoma et al. (US 2016/0126463 A1) as applied to claims 11, 14, 16, 18, and 26-28 above, further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0305242 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kadoma ‘463 reads on all the features of claim 11 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 is a second compound.
The device is not emitting a while light emitting device comprising a second emitting layer.
Takahashi discloses an organic EL device comprising a first emitting layer and a second emitting layer (Fig. 2), wherein the T1 energy of the first dopant is the lower than the T1 energy of the second host and dopants.
Takahashi teaches the device of Takahashi is a white light emitting device comprising a red light emitting material (i.e. first dopant in Fig. 2) and a blue light emitting material (i.e. second dopant in Fig. 2).
Takahashi teaches that the lowest triplet excitation energy of the first dopant can be a trap state and can be controlled by concentration of the first dopant material such that a long lifetime and improved emission efficiency can be achieved ([0024])
Takahashi exemplifies red dopants having lower triplet energy than the blue dopants (i.e. T1(RD13) = 1.24 eV in Table 4).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kadoma ‘463 by incorporating a red emitting layer comprising a red dopant which has the lower triplet energy than those of the blue emitting layer materials including the Compound H-7 of Ito and the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463, as taught by Ito, Kadoma ‘463, and Takahashi.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a trap state by a red dopant whose concentration is adjusted such that the device provides a long lifetime and improved emission efficiency can be achieved based on the teaching of Takahashi.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kadoma ‘463 and Takahashi comprising an anode, an first emitting layer (blue, Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 as a dopant), a second emitting layer containing a red dopant of Takahashi, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463 is a second compound; the red dopant of Takahashi is a third compound; T1(Compound H-7 of Ito) > T1 (a red dopant of Takahashi); and T1(Compound 100 of Kadoma ‘463) > T1 (a red dopant of Takahashi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 22-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As outlined in the Office Action of 02/25/2026, Ito (US 2010/0289013 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Ito teaches a composition comprising a first compound and a second compound; however, Ito does not teach a composition comprising a first and a second compound wherein each of the compounds is represented by formula (H13), wherein and the HOMO and the T1 energies of the compounds satisfy the Numerical Formulas A7 to A9 of the instant claim 19.
As outlined in the Office Action of 02/25/2026, Kubota (EP 2003108) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Kubota teaches a composition comprising a first compound and a second compound; however, Ito does not teach a composition comprising a first and a second compound wherein each of the compounds is represented by formula (H13), wherein and the HOMO and the T1 energies of the compounds satisfy the Numerical Formulas A7 to A9 of the instant claim 19.
As outlined in the Office Action of 02/25/2026, Kadoma (US 2011/0210316 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Kadoma teaches a composition comprising a first compound and a second compound; however, Kadoma does not teach a composition comprising a first and a second compound wherein each of the compounds is represented by formula (H13), wherein and the HOMO and the T1 energies of the compounds satisfy the Numerical Formulas A7 to A9 of the instant claim 19.
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 SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights