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
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims are indefinite because it is unclear how the HOMO and LUMO values are calculated. It has been shown in the prior art that the way HOMO and LUMO values are calculated has an effect on the obtained values and that under one way the values are calculated the mixture of compounds could meet the applicant’s claimed energy limitations, but under a different way the values are calculated the mixture of compounds may not meet the applicant’s claimed energy limitations. Further clarification is needed.
Furthermore, regarding the claims that it is unclear how the LUMO and HOMO values are compared to each other. It is unclear if the actual values are compared to each other, the absolute values of each value, or if it is the location of the value to 0 value that are compared to each other. Further clarification is needed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0058124) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) in view of Kang et al. (J. Mater. Chem. C 2016, 4, 4512-452) (hereafter “Jang”) and Ihn et al. (US 2019/0181353) (hereafter “Ihn”).
Regarding claims 1-20, Hatakeyama teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and cathode (paragraph [0358]-[0379], Table 2). Hatakeyama teaches that the light emitting layer is composed of a blue emitting boron dopant and a host material (paragraph [0358]-[0379], Table 2). Hatakeyama teaches
PNG
media_image1.png
148
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(which is the same as applicant’s F-4 compound) as a dopant for the electroluminescent device (paragraphs [0357] and [0379], Table 2). Hatakeyama does not limit the material used as the host material (paragraphs [0143]-[0148]).
Hatakeyama does not teach where light emitting layer comprises an assisting dopant and does not teach where the mixture meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitations.
Jang teaches host materials for use with blue emitting TADF dopants (abstract). Jang teaches that the host can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(which is the same as applicant’s TDH-13) (page 4515 first full paragraph Scheme 1). Jang teaches that when
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is used as the host material, the device efficiency is improved while limiting red-shifting of the blue dopant (pages 4518 and 4519).
Ihn teaches an electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer composed of a host material, assisting dopant, and a fluorescent dopant (paragraphs [0006]-[0013]). Ihn teaches that the assisting dopant can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image3.png
240
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(which is the same as applicant’s TDE23 compound) (paragraphs [0135], [0267], and [0353]-[0358], Table 1). Ihn teaches the dopant emits blue light (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Ihn teaches that when the assisting dopant is added to the light emitting layer the device has improved efficiency and lifetime (paragraph [0364], Tables 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hatakeyama, so the host material was
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as taught by Jang and the layer further comprises an assisting dopant,
PNG
media_image3.png
240
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as taught by Ihn. The motivation would have been to improve the efficiency and lifetime of device by limiting red-shifting of the blue emitted light.
The combination of references would lead to a mixture of
PNG
media_image1.png
148
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
240
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the applicant teaches the HOMO and LUMO values of these compounds.
PNG
media_image1.png
148
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
has a HOMO of -5.36 eV and a LUMO of -2.19 eV.
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
has a HOMO of -5.71 eV and a LUMO of -1.95 eV.
PNG
media_image3.png
240
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
has HOMO of -5.52 eV and a LUMO of -2.44 eV. These combination of materials meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Forrest et al. (2015/0349286) teaches the addition of TADF sensitizer to an electroluminescent device comprising a fluorescent dopant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759