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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 31 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 depends from itself, referring to “a light emitting layer of claim 31”, so the scope of the claim is unclear. It is also noted that no other independent claim is directed to a “light emitting layer”. Claim 16 is directed to an electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer. So if claim 31 was amended to depend from claim 16, it would not include all the limitations of claim 16 and would be rejected over 112d.
Claim 31 also requires “The TADF material EB” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 16-26 and 29-31 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 16-26 and 29-31 require specific energetic relationships between a host material, a TADF light emitting material and depopulation agent in a light emitting layer of an electroluminescent device. No structure of any of these three compounds is required by any of these claims. The examples of the instant specification teaches one host material, one TADF emitter material, and 7 different depopulation agents which fit within only two broad categories of structure. Claim 30 is directed to the use of a combination of a host material, a TADF material, and a depopulation agent in a light emitting layer. No structure of any of these three compounds is required by the claim.
The specification does not teach or suggest to a person of ordinary skill what particular features of the compounds shown give the compounds the claimed HOMO and singlet energy levels, nor does the specification provide direction as to how to form other combinations of compounds outside of those particularly taught, that would meet the claimed energy level limitations. The limited examples of compounds 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Haldi et al (US 20180323394 A1).
Haldi discloses a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) material EB in combination with at least one host material HB and at least one depopulation agent SB in a light-emitting layer for increasing the lifetime of the organic electroluminescent device [0007-0013].
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.
Claim(s) 16-27 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldi et al (US 20180323394 A1).
Haldi discloses an OLED device comprising a light emitting layer B [abstract, 0003, 0008-0012, 0079-0080, 0087-0088, 0118 et seq, p8-12, Examples] comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
342
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the disclosed first TADF material EB reads on the claimed SB and the disclosed second TADF material SB reads on the claimed EB.
Remember that the SB and EB are switched, Haldi also discloses that:
EHOMO(SB)−EHOMO(HB)≤0.3 eV and EHOMO(SB)−EHOMO(HB)≥−0.3 eV [0080], so when EHOMO(SB)−EHOMO(HB-) is less than 0 eV, this meets claimed formula (5a) because EHOMO(HB-) > EHOMO(SB). This also reads on claimed formula (6a) and (6b)
EHOMO(EB)−EHOMO(HB)≤0.3 eV and EHOMO(EB)−EHOMO(HB)≥−0.3 eV [0079], so when EHOMO(EB)−EHOMO(HB) is between 0.2 eV and 0.3 eV, this meets claimed formula (5b). This also reads on claimed formula (6a)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the invention of Haldi within the range of EHOMO(EB)−EHOMO(HB) is between 0.2 eV and 0.3 eV. This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.8 of formula (5b). In the case where the claimed ranges "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 re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Haldi also discloses the TADF materials have the same deltaEST values as claim 17 [0037]. The components are used in the same amounts as the instant claims [claim 21]. Regarding claim 22, Haldi discloses that ELUMO(SB-) <= ELUMO(EB) [0087-0088] (remembering that the SB and EB are switched). Both the first and second TADF materials EB and SB can have the same formula as claimed Formula I-TADF:
PNG
media_image2.png
245
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0118 et seq, p8-12, Examples].
Given that the TADF materials of Haldi have the same structure as the claims, as well as the same relative singlet and triplet energies and HOMO energies, they will act as depopulation agents. The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, claimed amounts, and substantially similar processes. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. depopulation activity would inherently be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants' position that this wouldn’t be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicants' position; and (2) it would be the Offices' position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar processes. See In re Spada, MPEP §2112.01, I and II.
Claim(s) 16-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldi et al (US 20180323394 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (Advanced Materials, 2016, 28(14):2777-2781, DOI: 10.1002/adma.201505491),
If Applicant argues that Haldi does not disclose the claims with sufficient specificity to make them obvious, then this rejection applies concurrently. This rejection applies to claim 28 regardless.
Haldi, discussed above, does not explicitly the first TADF material as a depopulation agent.
Hatakeyama discloses OLEDs having an electroluminescent layer comprising a boron containing compound having the structure of the claimed Formula I-NRCT:
PNG
media_image3.png
134
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p2779].
Hatekayama teaches that these compounds act as TADF emitters as well as assistant dopants for fluorescent emitters, and provide near 100% IQE [pp2777-2781, bridging ¶]. The specification indicates that these compounds are useful as depopulation agents [p23].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the TADF emitters of Hatekayama as one of the TADF emitters of Haldi because Hatekayama teaches that they are useful assistant TADF dopants and provide near 100% IQE.
Claim(s) 16-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldi et al (US 20180323394 A1) in view of Hatekayama2 (US 20150236274 A1).
If Applicant argues that Haldi does not disclose the claims with sufficient specificity to make them obvious, then this rejection applies concurrently. This rejection applies to claim 28 regardless.
Haldi, discussed above, does not explicitly the first TADF material as a depopulation agent.
Hatakeyama2 discloses OLEDs having an electroluminescent layer comprising a boron containing compound having the structure of the claimed Formula I-NRCT:
PNG
media_image4.png
177
222
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[p4].
The polycyclic aromatic compound exhibits thermally activated delayed fluorescence, the compound is also useful as a fluorescent material for an organic EL element [0046]. Hatekayama2 teaches that these compounds when used as dopants provide an excellent organic EL element [abstract, p184 Table 5]. The specification indicates that these compounds are useful as depopulation agents [p24].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the TADF emitters of Hatekayama2 as one of the TADF emitters of Haldi because Hatekayama teaches that they provide an excellent organic EL element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766