DETAILED ACTION
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 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 1-32 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.
While the Specification provides several examples which are encompassed by claim 1 requirements, the examples do not demonstrate that Applicant has possession for the full scope of claim 1 and its dependents. Claim 1 does not provide any amount of structural limitations for the first host and the second host and only defines those by being different from each other and the triplet energy of the first host is greater than the triplet energy of the second host. For the first dopant and the second dopant, claim 1 only limits the first and second dopant to a range of maximum peak wavelengths and that they are different from each other. Other than a specific set of examples, the Specification is broad regarding any guidance on structures or formulae that would be within the broad scope of the parameters of claim 1. The limited 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 2163-11-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 2-32 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11-15, 17-23, 26, 30-32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volz, et al. Volz, et al. (WO 2018/206138 A).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 13, 17-18, 26, Volz, et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device (page 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
620
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The office interprets to above as an organic electroluminescent device comprising an exciton quenching layer C located between the light-emitting layer B (applicants’ first light emitting layer) and an electron-transport layer D, wherein the exciton quenching layer C comprises at least one emitter Ec and at least 80%by weight of at least one electron transport material ETM.
As the exciton quenching layer C comprises at least one emitter Ec and at least an electron transport material. The electron transport material is viewed as a host material coupled with the emitter to be equivalent to a light emitting layer (applicants’ second light emitting layer).
Light-emitting layer B is viewed as corresponding to applicants’ first light emitting layer containing EB as the first dopant and HB as the first host.
In the Light-emitting layer B the host material HB = CBP (page 38, line 11). The T1 for CBP is 2.95 (see Table 1, page 48).Exciton quenching layer C is viewed as corresponding to applicants’ second light emitting layer containing electron transport material ETMD (second host) (page 6, line 10) and one emitter compound EC (second dopant) (page 6, line 11). The electron transport material ETMD (second host) is represented by NBPhen (page 10, line 19). The T1 for NBPhen is 2.39 (see Table 1, page 48).
The above shows T1 for first host 1CBP in the first light emitting layer is > T1 for the second host ETMD in the second light emitting layer.
The above device can emit across a range of wavelengths based on the desire colors as shown below (pages 43-44):
PNG
media_image2.png
370
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected a desired emission color which would have included dopants emitting in a desired wavelength range as taught by Volz, et al. which would have included the claimed range, absent unexpected results (per claims 1, 17-19).
The host is present at 5-99% weight (page 33, line 33) (per claims 5).
The device configuration shows Light-emitting layer B (first light emitting layer) on the anode side and Exciton quenching layer C (second light emitting layer) on the cathode side adjacent to Light-emitting layer B (per claims 13 and 26).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Volz, et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device reading on claim 1. Light-emitting layer B is viewed as corresponding to applicants’ first light emitting layer containing EB as the first dopant and HB as the first host.
As well known in the art a host transfers energy to a dopant and the dopant emits light, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have viewed the singlet energy S1 of the host as greater than the S1 of the dopant and the triplet energy T1of the host to be greater than the T1 of the dopant to allow energy to be transferred from host to dopant, absent unexpected results (per claims 2 and 9).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 20-21, Volz, et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device reading on claim 1. No metal complex is included (per claims, 11, 20-21).
Regarding Claim 12, Volz, et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device reading on claim 1. The dopant of the second light emitting layer (exciton quenching layer C) is present at 2-3 % weight (page 6, line 16) (per claim 12).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Volz, et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device reading on claim 1. A hole transport layer is located adjacent to the anode (page 37, line 11). The light emitting layer B is closer to the anode (above sections A and B in device configuration above) (per claim 14).
The electron transport layer is located adjacent to the second light emitting layer (exciton quenching layer C) and the cathode (above sections C and D in device configuration above) (per claim 15).
Regarding Claim 22, Volz, et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device reading on claim 1. Light-emitting layer B is viewed as corresponding to applicants’ first light emitting layer with a thickness 5nm to 180nm (page 10, line 24) (per claim 22).
Regarding Claim 23, Volz, et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device reading on claim 1. Exciton quenching layer C is viewed as corresponding to applicants’ second light emitting layer has a thickness of 0.5nm to 4nm (page 11, line 24).
The office notes that the thickness range of Volz, et al. at the upper end differs by 1nm. As Volz, et al. does not teach, suggest or offer an guidance for one or ordinary skill in the art to conclude any obvious unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have formed a slightly thicker film by 1nm to determine if there were any effects on device performance, absent unexpected results (per claim 23).
Regarding Claim 32, Volz, et al. teaches an organic electroluminescent device reading on claim 1. The organic electroluminescent device can be used for
generating screens, as large-area illuminating device, as luminescent wallpaper,
luminescent window frame or glass, luminescent label, luminescent poser or
flexible screen or display (page 43, lines 9-13) (per clam 32).
Regarding Claims 30-31, Volz, et al. teaches the Light-emitting layer B the host material HB = CBP (page 38, line 11). The T1 for CBP is 2.95 (see Table 1, page 48); 2.92eV > 2.0eV (per claim 30).
The second host ETMD is represented by NBPhen (page 10, line 19) and the T1 for NBPhen is 2.39 (see Table 1, page 48); 2.39eV > 1.9 eV (per claim 31).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786