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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office action has been made non-final, because, as pointed out by Applicant, claim 22 was not properly rejected.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10 July 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2, 17-18, and 21 are cancelled.
Claim 28 is new.
Claims 1, 3-16, 19-20, and 22-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1, 3-16, 19-21, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specification describes the limitations of the current claims. Applicant further argues that the Office action recognizes the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to broadly control the initial trajectory of a device luminance. Applicant further asserts that the instant specification supports demonstrated, reproducible changes in the carrier balance in the initial decay period when driven at constant current density. Applicant asserts that carrier balance is not considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to depend upon chemical structure. Applicant argues that the specification fully supports the current claims for these reasons.
The current specification does describe a carrier balance scenario in which initial lifetime curve decay is cancelled out by a luminance increase. However, as described in the last Office action, this description from the specification makes multiple references to the described conditions only leading to the initial increase in device luminance in some cases. The specification only provides a single example device in which an initial increase in device luminance is shown. While the current claims describe certain material selection criteria, based on the description of the specification, it does not appear that every iteration of the described material selection criteria would provide a device having the claimed local maximum in the initial decay period or wherein the lifetime curve has a point whose differential value is 0. Therefore, it does not appear that Applicant was in possession of the full scope of the current claims.
Applicant asserts that the previous Office action recognizes the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to control the initial decay period of a device and/or control the carrier balance in such a way to achieve a decay curve to have a local maximum value. Indeed, the Office action states: “However, more specific performance outcomes may not be predictable. This includes producing devices having specific luminance decay patterns.” Based on Applicant’s own description, the claimed outcome of a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value is uncertain even when using the material selection criteria of the current claims. As described by Applicant in the final paragraph of p. 7 through the second paragraph of p. 8 of the reply filed 5 February 2026, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect rapid initial decreases in device luminance and would not expect “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.”
Applicant is correct that the outcome of a local maximum has been demonstrated in the instant specification. However, this outcome is demonstrated in a single example and does not represent a repeated demonstration of changes in the carrier balance in the initial decay period when driven at constant current density. Rather, this appears to be a single instance of the outcome of a local maximum value in an initial decay period of a device lifetime curve amongst the more uncertain general description.
Applicant is correct that the chemical structure of a single charge transport material does not dictate the charge transport characteristics of a device. However, the material selection of all of the charge transport materials does dictate the charge transport characteristics of a device. While Applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to select a set of materials to achieve a desired charge transport outcome, the instant specification indicates uncertainty in obtained a desired charge transport outcome, in particular to achieve an initial increase in luminance. The specification in paragraphs [0192]-[0201] of the published specification describes the light emitting model in the light-emitting device of the instant disclosure. These paragraphs describe that at the initial driving stage some holes may reach the electron transport layer, extending the electron/hole recombination zone, and that this phenomenon may lead to an initial increase in device luminance as the recombination shifts to just the light-emitting layer where emission is efficient. Paragraph [0197] describes HOMO energy levels for the instant third compound contained in the electron-transport layer for this extension to be achieved in some cases. Paragraph [0197] additionally describes that the above phenomenon sometimes occurs when the difference between HOMO energy level of the host material (or assist material) of the light emitting layer and the third compound is 0.2 eV or less. Additionally, the electron transport layer is described as having a relatively low electron-transport property in paragraph [0196] of the instant specification. This description from the specification makes multiple references to the described conditions only leading to the initial increase in device luminance in some cases.
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, 3-16, 19-20, and 22-28 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 claim 1: Independent claim(s) 1 requires “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.” The instant description includes a description of a single example device having a specific structure and a specific decay curve.
The specification in paragraphs [0192]-[0201] of the published specification describes the light emitting model in the light-emitting device of the instant disclosure. These paragraphs describe that at the initial driving stage some holes may reach the electron transport layer, extending the electron/hole recombination zone, and that this phenomenon may lead to an initial increase in device luminance as the recombination shifts to just the light-emitting layer where emission is efficient. Paragraph [0197] describes HOMO energy levels for the instant third compound contained in the electron-transport layer for this extension to be achieved in some cases. Paragraph [0197] additionally describes that the above phenomenon sometimes occurs when the difference between HOMO energy level of the host material (or assist material) of the light emitting layer and the third compound is 0.2 eV or less. Additionally, the electron transport layer is described as having a relatively low electron-transport property in paragraph [0196] of the instant specification.
This description from the specification makes multiple references to the described conditions only leading to the initial increase in device luminance in some cases. This indicates uncertainty in achieving the described charge transport outcomes necessary to provide a device “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.” The specification only provides a single example device in which an initial increase in device luminance is shown and does not provide description to indicate that Applicant was in possession of the entire claimed scope of devices “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.”
Thus, for at least these reasons, while specification describes the above requirements that may lead to the claimed properties but provides no further description of which materials should be chosen to produce the claimed devices. The single example(s) described in the written description does not provide a representative number of materials sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the entire scope of claimed device structure that leads to the claimed properties (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Regarding claims 3-16, 19-20, and 22-28: Claims 3-16, 19-20, and 22-27 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-16, 19-20, and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for producing the general structure of the claimed device and the example whose luminance decay curve is shown in Fig. 14A, does not reasonably provide enablement for “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 describes a device requiring the property of “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.”
With respect to the factors described in In re Wands:
The claimed device comprises a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer. Limitations are placed on the HOMO energy levels of the “second compound” of the hole-injection layer; that the “first compound” of the hole-injection layer accepts electrons from the “second compound”. The claim places some limitations on the light-emitting material of the light-emitting layer. The claim requires a HOMO energy level requirement on the “third compound” that is contained in the electron transporting layer. The claim requires that the electron transport layer also comprise a substance comprising a metal. The claim places no limitations on the host material of the light emitting layer and places no limitations on the electron transport property of the material of the electron transport layer. In sum, despite there being several specific material requirements, there is significant breadth in the choices for other materials such as the host material and the electron transport material. Additionally, there is significant breadth in the possible layer structures for the claimed device.
The invention is an organic light-emitting device requiring that “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.”
Construction of organic light-emitting devices is well-known in the art. Selection of materials to provide a high functioning device is known.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable to producing an organic light-emitting device having the claimed layer structure and would be capable of selecting materials that in combination would provide a high functioning device.
Producing an organic light emitting device that is high functioning would be predictable for one of ordinary skill in the art given the state of the art. However, achieving the specific performance outcome of “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.” does not appear to be predictable. As described by Applicant in the final paragraph of p. 7 through the second paragraph of p. 8 of the reply filed 5 February 2026, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect rapid initial decreases in device luminance and would not expect “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component having a local maximum value in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.”
The specification in paragraphs [0192]-[0201] of the published specification describes the light emitting model in the light-emitting device of the instant disclosure. These paragraphs describe that at the initial driving stage some holes may reach the electron transport layer, extending the electron/hole recombination zone, and that this phenomenon may lead to an initial increase in device luminance as the recombination shifts to just the light-emitting layer where emission is efficient. Paragraph [0197] describes HOMO energy levels for the instant third compound contained in the electron-transport layer for this extension to be achieved in some cases. Paragraph [0197] additionally describes that the above phenomenon sometimes occurs when the difference between HOMO energy level of the host material (or assist material) of the light emitting layer and the third compound is 0.2 eV or less. Additionally, the electron transport layer is described as having a relatively low electron-transport property in paragraph [0196] of the instant specification.
This description from the specification makes multiple references to the described conditions only leading to the initial increase in device luminance in some cases.
The specification only provides a single example device in which an initial increase in device luminance is shown. This device comprises stacked structures for both the hole transport layer and electron transport layer, specific host materials, and a specific electron transport material. As described above, the specification in paragraphs [0192]-[0201] of the published specification describes the light emitting model in the light-emitting device of the instant disclosure. These paragraphs describe that at the initial driving stage some holes may reach the electron transport layer, extending the electron/hole recombination zone, and that this phenomenon may lead to an initial increase in device luminance as the recombination shifts to just the light-emitting layer where emission is efficient. Paragraph [0197] describes HOMO energy levels for the instant third compound contained in the electron-transport layer for this extension to be achieved in some cases. Paragraph [0197] additionally describes that the above phenomenon sometimes occurs when the difference between HOMO energy level of the host material (or assist material) of the light emitting layer and the third compound is 0.2 eV or less. Thus, there appears to be uncertainty in achieving the initial increase in device luminance when choosing materials beyond the materials of the single provided example.
Given that one of ordinary skill would expect an initial decrease in device luminance and the breadth of options for the host material, the electron transport materials that meet the HOMO energy requirements, and the options for specific layer structure of layers such as the hole transport layer and electron transport layer, absent additional guidance from Applicant, one of ordinary skill in the art would need to test an unduly large number of host materials, electron transport materials, and device layer structures in order to produce a device “wherein the light-emitting device exhibits a lifetime curve comprising a component with a negative coefficient in an initial decay period when driven at a current density of 75 mA/cm2.”
Regarding claims 3-16, 19-20, and 22-28: Claims 3-16, 19-21, and 23-27 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1. While the dependent claims require additional structure and/or material property requirements for the construction of the claimed device, none of the dependent claims rectify undue experimentation required to produce the claimed device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights