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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4, 8, 11 and 16 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.
Claims 4, 8, 11, and 16 each require “wherein a glass transition temperature of the first organic compound and[[or]] a glass transition temperature of the second organic compound are each higher than or equal to 100 °C and lower than or equal to 180 °C.” The instant description includes a description of an essentially infinite or otherwise exceptionally large number of materials that could be used as the first organic compound or the second organic compounds. The description provides zero examples of such a combination of materials that are positively recited to meet this claim requirement. The specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be useable as these materials but provides no description of which first and second organic compounds have glass transition temperatures in this range. In fact, the specification does provides the glass transition temperatures for only a single material in this range. The zero example combinations described in the written description do 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 2016/0028022) (Seo).
In reference to claims 1-3 and 7, Seo teaches an organic light emitting element comprising an anode and a cathode a hole transport layer, a hole injection layer, a light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer wherein the emitting layer comprises a first and second host compound and a light emitting substance which can be selected as blue (Seo [0130]), and wherein a compound as shown below is used as a material for both one of the host materials and in the electron transport layer. Seo further teaches that the other host material of the light emitting layer can be a compound PCzPCN1 (below right) that includes the naphthyl group (see e.g. example element 8, table 9 with taught alternative host material [0121] and blue emitting material [0130]).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Seo does not exemplify the device with this specific material combination, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have selected this device configuration from among those taught by Seo with the anticipation of providing a device having comparable functional properties to those exemplified by Seo.
For Claim 1: The light emitting layer read son the emitting layer, the second host reads on the first compound comprising a fused aromatic hydrocarbon ring, the light emitting material reads on a blue emitting material, 2mPCCzBPDBq reads on a second compound as a material with a biscarbazole and a diazine ring and wherein PCzPCN1 with a naphthyl group reads on the first organic compound comprising a fused aromatic ring.
For Claim 2: Naphthyl is fused benzene rings.
For Claim 3: Reads on a fused group comprising a diazine.
For Claim 7: Reads on the claimed device wherein the first compound has a naphthyl group.
For Claims 4 and 8, While Seo does not teach the glass temperatures of these materials, such a property is inherent to the materials. Applicant does not disclose that any specific materials meet this property. The materials pointed to meet all structural limitations of the claims and are therefore considered to meet the property requirements. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
In reference to claim 5, Seo teaches alternative emitting materials including those that emit light through a fluorescent mechanism (Seo [0129] [0126]). It would have been obvious to have selected from among the taught emitting materials to have arrived at the instantly claimed device with the anticipation of providing a device of similar functionality (emits light).
It is further noted that “the light-emitting substance emits fluorescent light” is not particularly limiting as the light is the same regardless of its emission through fluorescence or phosphorescence etc.
In reference to claim 6, Seo teaches the device as described above and exemplifies materials for the hole transport and hole injection layer such as DBT3P-II, MoOx and BPAFLP as materials for such a layer (Seo Table 9, element 8). While Seo does not state that these compounds “accept electrons” from one another, this is the function of ‘hole transport’ layer materials in such a device.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Seo et al (US 2016/0028022) (Seo) in view of Lin et al (Applied Physics Letters, 89, 121913 (2006)) (Lin).
In reference to claim 9, Seo teaches the device as described above for claim 1 but does not expressly teach that the second host material is the claimed anthracene derivative defined by formula G1. Seo provides HOMO requirements for the second host compound such that the HOMO level of the first organic compound is lower than the HOMO level of the second organic compound; and a difference between the HOMO level of the first organic compound and the HOMO level of the second organic compound is less than or equal to 0.4 eV (Seo Abstract, throughout). Seo also teaches that the HOMO of 2mPCCzBPDBq is – 5.63 eV (Seo [0276]).
With respect to the difference, Lin teaches a host material MADN as a host material for organic electroluminescent devices that is morphologically stable with a high band gap and a HOMO value of -5.5 eV that therefore meets the preferred electronic properties of Seo’s host (Page 1, col 2, Fig 1).
In light of the motivation of using MADN 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 MADN host as described by Lin in order to provide a host material with a high band gap that is morphologically stable and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 10, Seo teaches the device as described above and exemplifies materials for the hole transport and hole injection layer such as DBT3P-II, MoOx and BPAFLP as materials for such a layer (Seo Table 9, element 8). While Seo does not state that these compounds “accept electrons” from one another, this is the function of ‘hole transport’ layer materials in such a device. Further, while Seo does not state the resistivity of these layer(s) such a property is inherent to the materials that the layer comprises. Applicant does not disclose that any specific materials meet this property. The materials pointed to meet all structural limitations of the claims and are therefore considered to meet the property requirements. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
For Claim 11, While Seo in view of Lin does not teach the glass temperatures of these materials, such a property is inherent to the materials. Applicant does not disclose that any specific materials meet this property. The materials pointed to meet all structural limitations of the claims and are therefore considered to meet the property requirements. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Independent claim 12 is drawn to a device comprising a two light emitting devices with specific configurations including first and second insulating layers that are positioned between a first or second electron injection layer and the sides of first and second light emitting layers and first and second layers as set forth in the claims and wherein the materials of those layers are limited to certain materials. A search of the prior art did not identify such devices.
The closest prior art corresponds to Seo et al (2016/0028022) (Seo). Seo teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising the claimed materials. Seo further teaches that the devices can comprise multiple light emitting portions and that these are separated by partition walls that broadly could read on the claimed insulating layers (See e.g. Fig 5). However, Seo does not teach that these partition walls are formed over the electron injection layer and on the side of the light emitting and electron transport layers (Applicant’s first and second layers). Further, there is no teaching identified in the prior art that would have motivated the ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified such a device configuration to have arrived at the instantly claimed devices before the effective filing date of the instant application with sufficient detail and specificity to have rendered such a structure obvious.
Claims 12-13 and 17-19 are allowed.
Claims 20 to 22 require similar insulating layers and are therefore drawn to allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 12 above.
Claims 20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(a) of claims 4, 8, 11 and 16, Applicant argues that the specification does satisfy the written description requirement. Applicant points to case law that recites “for a functionally defined genus like the one at issue here, we have spoken more modestly of a ‘correlation between structure and function.’” Applicant points to paragraphs [0061] [0062] [0073] [0074] as support for such a defined correlation between structural features of compounds and the glass temperatures. Applicant further points to paragraphs [0447] and [0470] as defining a specific example of Tg of a second compound and attests that even one example of a Tg of a first organic compound is not required as the ordinarily skilled artisan would clearly understand from the disclosure that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. These arguments have been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
With respect to the correlation between structure and Tg, the paragraphs pointed to do not provide sufficient teaching to demonstrate any correlation between structure and the desired feature. The only structural features are broadly defined ring groups that do not limit the structure, for example an anthracene ring, a benzoanthracene ring, a dibenzoanthracene ring, a chrysene ring, a naphthalene ring, a phenanthrene ring or a triphenylene ring ([0061]) and that compounds with such structures “tend to have a high Tg”. However, a high Tg is a relative term. Further, the language “tend to” does not even teach that any material with those structures would have the claimed range of Tg. Further, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not expect that any material with a naphthalene moiety, for example, regardless of the remaining structure, would have a Tg that is within the range. That is, the paragraphs pointed to and the specification as a whole do not provide any clear teaching of a correlation between structure and the claimed features.
With respect to the single example of a second compound’s Tg within the claimed range, this compound is still insufficient to define a single species of the claimed invention because the claims require that both of the first and second compound have a Tg within the claimed range. As stated above, the specification does not provide sufficient description of the structure of a first compound that meets this requirement. Further, a single example of the second compound is still insufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.
In reference to the outstanding rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Seo does not teach that the second compound is not the same as the first compound. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. As clearly set forth in the previous office action and again in the rejection herein above, Seo is recited for teaching the compound 2mPCCzBPDBq as a second compound and PCzPCN1 as the first compound. These compounds are not the same.
Applicant points to the combinations of the host materials in Seo that form an exciplex not emitting blue light. However, the exciplex of Seo is a host and the emitting material is optionally selected as a blue emitter. The emission color of the host is immaterial to the claimed feature defining the emission color of the light-emitting substance.
Applicant argues that the example device of element 8 in Table 9 of Seo has PCBBiF as a material of the light emitting layer and not PCzPCN1. This argument is not convincing. The example is pointed to as a basis that defines typical structural features of the device of Seo. PCzPCN1 is a taught alternative to forming an exciplex host as taught by Seo with electron accepting materials such as 2mPCCzBPDBq (See Seo [0117] to [0122]) in a device of such a structure. Further, Applicant has taken the reference to this material in paragraph [0121] out of context. In context, this section defines how to select materials for use in forming an exciplex as described and does not just define this material as a compound likely to accept holes.
In reference to the rejections of claims 9-11, Applicant argues that Lin does not disclose an exciplex so there is no reason to combine MADN in the light emitting layer of Seo. This argument is not convincing. Seo sets forth electronic requirements for a material to form an exciplex. Lin teaches MADN as a host material and it has the electronic requirements that Seo teaches would allow it to form an exciplex when combined with the other hosts of Seo, a fact pattern clearly established in the outstanding rejections. Lin need not teach exciplexes for the material of Lin to be usable in one as Seo teaches how to select materials for exciplex formation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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