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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 5-8, 11-12, and 16-20 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.
Independent claim 1 requires the limitation below.
PNG
media_image1.png
176
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The instant description includes a description some sorts of compounds that broadly meet the structural limitations and gives exemplary devices that are not positively recited to meet the triplet requirements and in fact provides triplet energies for zero materials described in the written description. Further, each of the first and second compounds are defined only by a very small structural feature that is not significant in the determination of a triplet energy of a material and each of the compounds can be organometallic, small molecule, oligomer, or polymeric materials so long as they include very limited structural features. The description provides zero example of such a combination that meets this requirement. The specification further provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable as first and second compounds but provides no further description of which first or second compounds meet the triplet energy requirements. The zero examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
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.
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 1-3, 5-8, 11-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2016/0104854) (Jeon) in view of Kim et al (US 2018/0182991) (Kim2), Takeshi et al (US 2011/0240983) (Takeshi), and Jang et al (US 20160276596) (Jang).
In reference to claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11-12, and 16-19, Jeon teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising at least one light emitting layer between an anode and a cathode, an electron transport layer between the light emitting layer and the cathode including a first electron transport material and a second electron transport layer wherein the triplet energy of the first electron transport material has a triplet energy of 2.6 eV to 2.8 eV and the second electron transport material has a triplet energy of 1.6 eV to 2.0 eV (Jeon [0011] [0014] [0017]) and wherein the first electron transport material can be various materials such as triazoles among others (Jeon [0076]) and the second electron transport material can be various materials such as anthracene derivatives etc. substituted with a heteroaryl group (Jeon [0077]) and further includes an electron injection layer and hole transport layer (Jeon [0066]).
Jeon does not expressly teach that the electron injection layer includes a metal halide and a lanthanide material as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Kim2 teaches, in analogous art, compositions for electron injection layers of organic light emitting diodes wherein the layer comprises a metal halide such as KI doped with Yb at a ratio of 1:9 to 9:1 (Kim2 [0009], abstract, [0073] to [0076]) and further teaches that when used in the display device such materials lower driving voltage and increase efficiency (Kim2 [0119]).
In light of the motivation of using the electron injection materials as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the Ki and Yb mixture in the electron injection layer as described by Kim2 in order to provide a device with improved light emission efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Jeon in view of Kim2 does not expressly teach that the second electron transport material should be a material with the structure instantly claimed but generally teaches it as an anthracene derivative etc. substituted with a heteroaryl group for electron transport.
With respect to the difference, Takeshi teaches, in analogous art, triazine materials for organic electroluminescent devices that comprise either anthracene groups, pyrene groups etc. such as the compound show below for use in an electron transport layer (Takeshi [0028] [0046]).
PNG
media_image2.png
212
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takeshi further teaches that when used in a device, the device has a long continuous driving lifetime (Takeshi [0010]).
In light of the motivation of using compound 4 as an electron transport material as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound 4 as described by Takeshi in order to give a device with a long continuous driving lifetime thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Jeon in view of Kim2 and Takeshi does not expressly teach that the first electron transport material should be a material with the structure instantly claimed but generally teaches it as a heterocycle with a high triplet energy.
With respect to the difference, Jang teaches, in analogous art, compound 5 as shown below for use in electron transport layers of organic electronic devices (Jang [0112]).
PNG
media_image3.png
418
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jang further teaches that the use of this compound in a device improves efficiency, driving voltage and/or service life of the device (Jang [0018]).
In light of the motivation of using compound 5 as an electron transport material as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound 5 as described by Jang in order to improve efficiency, driving voltage and/or service life of a device and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on the claimed device structure wherein compound 5 reads on the second compound, compound 4 reads on the first compound, KI reads on the metal halide and Yb is the lanthanide and reads on the claimed range.
For Claim 2: Reads on the claimed configuration.
For Claim 5: Reads on an alkali metal halide.
For Claim 6: Reads on K.
For Claim 8: Reads on no metals.
For Claim 11: Reads on benzene.
For Claim 12: Reads on 1(4).
For Claim 16: Reads on 1-16.
For Claim 17: Reads on 2-8.
For Claim 18: Reads on the claimed device structure.
For Claim 19: Reads on an apparatus.
In reference to claim 3, Jeon in view of Kim2, Takeshi, and Jang teaches the device as described above for claim 1 and further teaches the electron transport layer has a thickness from 5 nm to 45 nm (50 to 450 Å) (Jeon [0021]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 7, Jeon in view of Kim2, Takeshi, and Jang teaches the device as described above for claim 1 and further teaches the electron injection layer has a thickness from 1 to 50 Å) (Kim [0081]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 20, Jeon in view of Kim2, Takeshi, and Jang teaches the device as described above for claim 19 and further teaches that these devices can also include color filters (Jeon [0006]). While Jeon in view of Kim does not exemplify this exact device configuration, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have employed known and taught device applications as set forth by the prior art before the effective filing date of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(a) of claims for failing to meet the written description requirement, Applicant argues that the specific structural elements control the triplet energy by way of requiring defined carbocyclic group or heterocyclic groups. However, the formulae claimed do not necessarily describe a significant structural feature of the materials claimed and instead be a only a small portion of the compound as there are nearly no limitations to the rest of the structure (many substituents claimed are exceptionally broad Markush groups that include such language as “or any combination thereof” leading to an essentially infinite number of configurations).
There is no clear relationship between triplet energy and common structural features defined in the specification and Applicant has provided zero examples of materials and combinations that meet the claim limitations nor evidence that the structural features reasonably correlate with the asserted function.
Applicant argues that written description does not require the specification to list every species or provide actual triplet-energy values for every compound. The Office has not stated that all values or all species must be provided and listed. However, Applicant has not provided even a single species or value to demonstrate possession.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 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, Jennifer A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights