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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Election/Restrictions
After reconsideration of the requirement of election of species set forth in the Office action dated 02/13/2025, and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement of election of species was previously withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10/13/2025 is entered.
Claims 1, 9, 11-12, and 14 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The objection to claims 12 and 13 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 9 and 11 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 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 14 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to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office action is withdrawn due to reconsideration of the original grounds of the rejection.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made 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.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 17-18 of the reply dated 10/13/2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and dependents 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 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 11, it is suggested that in the definition of Ar24 to Ar27, "an other group represented Formula 2" be changed to "another group represented by Formula 2" or "a further group represented by Formula 2" for ease of reading.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims recite an organic light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer comprises an emission region comprising a first emission layer proximate to a hole transport region and a second emission layer proximate to an electron transport region, wherein the first emission layer and the second emission layer are different from each other, and Equation 1 is satisfied: VHOD_EML1 (at 10 mA/cm2) + 0.5 s ≤ VHOD_EML2 (at 10 mA/cm2). In Equation 1, VHOD_EML1 (at 10 mA/cm2) is a driving voltage value when a current density of a first hole-only device having a structure comprising the first electrode, the hole transport region, the first emission layer, and the second electrode is 10 mA/cm2 and VHOD_EML2 (at 10 mA/cm2) is a driving voltage value when a current density of a second hole-only device having a structure comprising the first electrode, the hole transport region, the second emission layer, and the second electrode is 10 mA/cm2.
Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The description only provides eight examples of such a combination of a first emission layer and a second emission layer that meets the required limitations described above, wherein multiple small molecule organic compounds (six total) are used repeatedly in the examples. The specification provide exceptionally broad guidance on what materials might be useable to mee the claimed Formula 1 and no further description or other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared trait which would result in the claimed relationship. For example, the material(s) of the first emission layer and the second emission layer could be any one of a small molecule, an organometallic compound, or a polymer, which encompasses a vast number of potential compounds and even greater number of combinations. In the case of some claims (claims 10-12 and 14-15) the structure of one compound is provided; however, the structure(s) of the remaining material(s) is still not limited in any way other than its relationship to the one whose structure is specified. Disclosure of any one material in one of the first or second emission layer characterized by its structural formula, without more, does not appear to provide adequate written description of the remaining material(s) claimed only by its relationship to the one whose structure is specified especially when the properties claimed (a driving voltage value of a hole-only device) are based inherently on the chemical structure of these compounds and content of the layer. The limited number of examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the full scope of the claimed genus.
Therefore, the claims are rejected as lacking adequate written description.
Claims 2-20 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1 these claims also contain 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786